1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

ROB BONTA

Attorney General of California

EDWARD H. OCHOA (SBN 144842)

Senior Assistant Attorney General

LAURA J. ZUCKERMAN (SBN 161896)

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

HEATHER M. LEWIS (SBN 291933)

ERIN GANAHL (SBN 248472)

MARI MAYEDA (SBN 110947)

BRIAN CALAVAN (SBN 347724)

KATE HAMMOND (SBN 293433)

Deputy Attorneys General

1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor

P.O. Box 70550

Oakland, CA 94612-0550

Telephone: (510) 879-1008

Fax: (510) 622-2270

E-mail: Heather.Lewis@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

People of the State of California ex rel. Rob Bonta,

Attorney General of California

EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES

UNDER GOV. CODE SEC. 6103

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, ex rel. ROB BONTA,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION;

EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION;

SHELL PLC; SHELL USA, INC.; SHELL

OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC;

CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON

U.S.A. INC.; CONOCOPHILLIPS;

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY;

PHILLIPS 66; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; BP

P.L.C.; BP AMERICA INC.; AMERICAN

PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; AND DOES 1

THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT,

EQUITABLE RELIEF, PENALTIES,

AND DAMAGES

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

(1) PUBLIC NUISANCE;

(2) GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION

12607;

(3) UNTRUE OR MISLEADING

ADVERTISING;

(4) MISLEADING ENVIRONMENTAL

MARKETING;

(5) UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR, OR

FRAUDULENT BUSINESS

PRACTICES;

(6) STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY –

FAILURE TO WARN; AND

(7) NEGLIGENT PRODUCTS

LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5

II. PARTIES ................................................................................................................ 8

A. Plaintiff ........................................................................................................ 8

B. Defendants................................................................................................... 8

C. Relevant Non-Parties: Defendants’ Agents/Front Groups ........................ 29

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................... 30

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 32

A. Defendants Are Substantially Responsible for Causing and

Accelerating Climate Change ................................................................... 32

B. Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand the Dangers

Associated with Fossil Fuel Products, and Either Knew or Should

Have Known of Those Dangers ................................................................ 36

C. Defendants Did Not Disclose Known Harms Associated with the

Intended Use of Fossil Fuel Products, and Instead Affirmatively

Concealed Those Harms by Engaging in a Campaign of Deception

to Increase the Use of Those Products ...................................................... 52

D. Defendants Could Have Chosen to Facilitate, and Be Part of, a

Lower-Carbon Future, but Instead Chose Corporate Profits and

Continued Deception ................................................................................. 71

E. Defendants’ Internal Actions Demonstrate Their Awareness of the

Impacts of Climate Change and Their Intent to Continue to Profit

from the Unabated Use of Fossil Fuel Products........................................ 72

F. Defendants’ Actions Have Slowed the Development of Alternative

Energy Sources and Exacerbated the Costs of Adapting to and

Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of the Climate Crisis .............................. 74

G. Defendants Continue to Deceive California Consumers Through

Misleading Advertisements That Portray Defendants as Climate-

Friendly Energy Companies and Obscure Their Role in Causing

Climate Change ......................................................................................... 80

1. Defendants’ Affirmative Promotion of Fossil Fuel Products

as “Green,” “Clean,” or Otherwise Good for the

Environment Is Likely to Mislead California Consumers

About How Use of Those Fossil Fuel Products Leads to

Climate Change ............................................................................. 81

2. Defendants’ Affirmative Claims That They Contribute

Substantially to Climate Change Solutions Are Likely to

Mislead California Consumers ...................................................... 88

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

Page

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

H. Defendants’ Concealments and Misrepresentations Regarding the

Dangers of Fossil Fuel Products Encouraged Continued Use of

Fossil Fuels and Discouraged Concerted Action on Greenhouse Gas

Emissions .................................................................................................. 92

I. The Effects of Defendants’ Deceit Are Ongoing ...................................... 94

J. The State Has Suffered, Is Suffering, and Will Suffer Injuries from

Defendants’ Wrongful Conduct ................................................................ 96

1. Extreme Heat ................................................................................. 97

2. Drought and Water Shortages ..................................................... 100

3. Extreme Wildfire ......................................................................... 102

4. Public Health Injuries .................................................................. 107

5. Extreme Storms and Flooding ..................................................... 109

6. Damage to Agriculture ................................................................ 111

7. Sea Level Rise, Coastal Flooding and Coastal Erosion .............. 114

8. Ecosystem, Habitat, and Biodiversity Disruption ....................... 116

V. CAUSES OF ACTION ....................................................................................... 120

First Cause of Action: Public Nuisance .............................................................. 120

Second Cause of Action: Action For Equitable Relief For Pollution,

Impairment, And Destruction of Natural Resources ........................................... 123

Third Cause of Action: Untrue or Misleading Advertising ................................ 125

Fourth Cause of Action: Misleading Environmental Marketing......................... 126

Fifth Cause of Action: Unlawful, Unfair, or Fraudulent Business Practices ...... 127

Sixth Cause of Action: Strict Products Liability ................................................. 128

Seventh Cause of Action: Negligent Products Liability ..................................... 131

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................... 133

VII. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL .......................................................................... 136

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

The People of the State of California, by and through Rob Bonta, the Attorney General of

California, allege as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In 2023 alone, the State of California has endured both extreme drought and

widespread flooding, sprawling wildfires and historic storms, and an unusually cold spring and a

record-hot summer. These extremes are devastating the State and destroying people’s lives and

livelihoods, and they are accelerating. These extremes are the products of climate change, and

climate change is the product of widespread combustion of fossil fuels. Oil and gas company

executives have known for decades that reliance on fossil fuels would cause these catastrophic

results, but they suppressed that information from the public and policymakers by actively

pushing out disinformation on the topic. Their deception caused a delayed societal response to

global warming. And their misconduct has resulted in tremendous costs to people, property, and

natural resources, which continue to unfold each day. Californians and their families,

communities, and small businesses should not have to bear all the costs of climate change alone;

the companies that have polluted our air, choked our skies with smoke, wreaked havoc on our

water cycle, and contaminated our lands must be made to mitigate the harms they have brought

upon the State. This lawsuit seeks to hold those companies accountable for the lies they have told

and the damage they have caused.

2. The People of the State of California (State)

bring this action against Defendants

Exxon Mobil Corporation; ExxonMobil Oil Corporation; Shell plc; Shell USA, Inc.; Shell Oil

Products Company LLC; Chevron Corporation; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; ConocoPhillips;

ConocoPhillips Company; Phillips 66; Phillips 66 Company; BP P.L.C.; BP America Inc.;

American Petroleum Institute, and Does 1 through 100 (collectively, Defendants) for creating,

contributing to, and/or assisting in the creation of state-wide climate change-related harms in

In this Complaint, the term “State” refers to the State of California, unless otherwise

stated. The term “California” refers to the area falling within the State’s geographic boundaries,

unless otherwise stated. The State expressly disclaims injuries arising on federal land and tribal

lands held in trust by the United States and does not seek recovery or relief attributable to these

injuries.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

California. As more fully alleged below, Defendants created, contributed to, and/or assisted in the

creation of a public nuisance, and harmed or destroyed natural resources.

3. Defendants are large companies in the fossil fuel industry who have misled

consumers and the public about climate change for decades. Defendants have known since at least

the 1960s that fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution that

would warm the planet and change our climate. Defendants’ own scientists knew as early as the

1950s that these climate impacts would be catastrophic, and that there was only a narrow window

of time in which communities and governments could take action before the consequences

became catastrophic.

4. Rather than warn consumers, the public, and governments, however, Defendants

mounted a disinformation campaign beginning at least as early as the 1970s to discredit the

burgeoning scientific consensus on climate change; deny their own knowledge of climate change-

related threats; create doubt in the minds of consumers, the media, teachers, policymakers, and

the public about the reality and consequences of the impacts of burning fossil fuels; and delay the

necessary transition to a lower-carbon future.

5. Defendants’ climate deception campaign, and aggressive promotion of the use of

fossil fuel products while knowing the dangers associated with them, had the purpose and effect

of unduly and substantially inflating and sustaining the market for fossil fuels while

misrepresenting and concealing the hazards of those products to deceive consumers and the

public about the consequences of everyday use of fossil fuel products. Defendants’ tortious and

deceptive conduct caused an enormous, foreseeable, and avoidable increase in anthropogenic

GHG emissions and accelerated global warming, bringing devastating consequences to the State

and its people. While Defendants have promoted and/or profited from the extraction and

consumption of fossil fuels, the State and its residents have spent, and will continue to spend,

billions of dollars to recover from climate change-induced superstorms and wildfires; will have to

allocate and manage dwindling water supplies in extreme drought; will have to fortify state

infrastructure against sea level rise and coastal and inland flooding; and will have to protect

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

California’s people, infrastructure, and natural resources from extreme heat and many other

climate change hazards.

6. Defendants’ deceptive and tortious conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about

these devastating climate change impacts in California, including, but not limited to, extreme

heat, more frequent and intense droughts, increasingly severe wildfires, more frequent and intense

storms and associated flooding, degradation of air and water quality, damage to agriculture, sea

level rise, and habitat and species loss. As a direct result of Defendants’ egregious misconduct,

the State has incurred significant climate change harms, and will continue to incur such harms

into the future. The associated consequences of these physical and environmental changes are felt

throughout every part of the State, across all ecosystems and communities, and can be

compounded in frontline communities, which often disproportionately bear the burden of climate

impacts.

7. Defendants’ individual and collective conduct was a substantial factor in bringing

about the State’s climate-related injuries. Defendants’ knowing concealment and

misrepresentation of fossil fuels’ dangers—together with the affirmative promotion of

unrestrained fossil fuel use—drove fossil fuel consumption and delayed the transition to a lower-

carbon future, resulting in greater greenhouse gas pollution, accelerated global warming, and

more dire impacts from the climate crisis in California and elsewhere.

8. The scale of the devastating public nuisance created by Defendants’ egregious

misconduct is truly staggering, and California will be dealing with the consequences of this

misconduct for many generations. The State respectfully requests that this Court order Defendants

to abate the massive public nuisance they created, contributed to, and/or assisted in the creation

of, and that this Court use its equitable powers to order Defendants to mitigate future harm to the

environment and people of California attributable to Defendants’ unlawful actions, including, but

not limited to, by granting preliminary and permanent equitable relief. The State further

“Frontline communities” are those that are and will continue to be disproportionately

impacted by climate change. In many cases, the most harmed are the same communities that have

historically experienced racial, social, health, and economic inequities.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

respectfully requests that this Court order Defendants to pay damages, statutory penalties, and

restitution.

II. PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

9. Plaintiff is the People of the State of California. This civil enforcement action is

prosecuted on behalf of the People by and through Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California,

under the Attorney General’s broad independent powers to enforce state laws (Cal. Const., art. V,

§ 13), and pursuant to Government Code section 12600 et seq.; Civil Code sections 3479, 3480,

3491, and 3494; Business and Professions Code sections 17203, 17204, 17206, 17535, and

17536; and Code of Civil Procedure sections 731 and 1021.8.

B. Defendants

10. Defendants include some of the largest oil and gas companies in the world, and a

national oil and gas industry trade association. The fossil fuels produced by the defendant

companies (and promoted by the defendant trade association) are individually and collectively

responsible for the emission of billions of tons of greenhouse gases.

11. When this Complaint references an act or omission of Defendants, unless specifically

attributed or otherwise stated, such references mean that the officers, directors, agents,

employees, or representatives of Defendants committed or authorized such an act or omission, or

failed to adequately supervise or properly control or direct their employees while engaged in the

management, direction, operation or control of the affairs of Defendants, and did so while acting

within the scope of their employment or agency.

12. Exxon Entities: Exxon Mobil Corporation; ExxonMobil Oil Corporation

a. Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation is a New Jersey corporation headquartered

in Spring, Texas, and has been registered to do business in California since 1972. Exxon Mobil

Corporation is a multinational, vertically integrated energy and chemical company and one of the

largest publicly traded international oil and gas companies in the world. Exxon Mobil

Corporation was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to

Exxon Corporation; ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company; Exxon Chemical U.S.A.;

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

ExxonMobil Chemical Corporation; ExxonMobil Chemical U.S.A.; ExxonMobil Refining &

Supply Corporation; Exxon Company, U.S.A.; Standard Oil Company of New Jersey; and Mobil

Corporation.

b. Defendant ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon

Mobil Corporation, acts on Exxon Mobil Corporation’s behalf, and is subject to Exxon Mobil

Corporation’s control. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is a New York corporation headquartered in

Spring, Texas, and has been registered to do business in California since 1959. ExxonMobil Oil

Corporation was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to

Mobil Oil Corporation. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is engaged in the business of oil and natural

gas production, refining, marketing, and distribution.

c. Exxon Mobil Corporation controls and has controlled company-wide decisions

about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its

subsidiaries. Exxon Mobil Corporation’s 2022 Form 10-K filed with the United States Securities

and Exchange Commission represents that its success, including its “ability to mitigate risk and

provide attractive returns to shareholders, depends on [its] ability to successfully manage [its]

overall portfolio, including diversification among types and locations of [its] projects, products

produced, and strategies to divest assets.” Exxon Mobil Corporation determines whether and to

what extent its subsidiaries market, produce, and/or distribute fossil fuel products.

d. Exxon Mobil Corporation controls and has controlled company-wide decisions,

including those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions and climate

change resulting from the company’s fossil fuel products, and communications strategies

concerning climate change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the

environment and humans. Exxon Mobil Corporation’s Board holds the highest level of direct

responsibility for climate change policy within the company. Exxon Mobil Corporation’s

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, its President, and the other members of its

Management Committee have been actively engaged in discussions relating to GHG emissions

and the risks of climate change on an ongoing basis. Exxon Mobil Corporation requires its

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

subsidiaries, when seeking funding for capital investments, to provide estimates of project costs

related to GHG emissions.

e. Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, and their

predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions, are collectively referred

to herein as “Exxon.”

f. The State’s claims against Exxon arise out of and are related to the acts and

omissions of Exxon in California and elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries in California.

g. Exxon consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all areas of the fossil fuel

industry, including exploration for and production of crude oil and natural gas; manufacture of

petroleum products; and transportation, promotion, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas,

and petroleum products. Exxon is also a major manufacturer and marketer of commodity

petrochemical products.

h. Exxon has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward California by

distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in

California, with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and

will continue to cause climate change-related harms in California, including the State’s injuries.

Exxon’s statements in California and elsewhere made in furtherance of its campaign of deception

about and denial of climate change, and Exxon’s affirmative promotion of its fossil fuel products

as safe with knowledge of how the intended use of those products would cause climate change-

related harms, were designed to conceal and mislead consumers and the public, including the

State and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences that would result from continued

use of Exxon’s products. That conduct was purposefully directed to reach and influence the State

and its residents to continue unabated use of Exxon’s fossil fuel products in California, thereby

resulting in the State’s injuries.

i. Over the past several decades and continuing to the present day, Exxon spent

millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor advertisements in the

California market related to its fossil fuel products. Since at least 1972, and continuing to the

present day, Exxon has advertised its fossil fuel products in print publications circulated widely to

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

California consumers, including but not limited to: The Atlantic, Life, National Geographic, The

New York Times, People, Sports Illustrated, Time, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington

Post. As further detailed herein, these include advertisements containing false or misleading

statements, misrepresentations, and/or material omissions designed to hide the connection

between the production and use of Exxon’s fossil fuel products and climate change, and/or

misrepresenting Exxon’s products or Exxon itself as environmentally friendly.

j. Significant quantities of Exxon’s fossil fuel products are or have been

transported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in

California, from which activities Exxon derives and has derived substantial revenue. Exxon owns

and operates a petroleum storage and transport facility in the San Ardo Oil Field in San Ardo,

California. Exxon and its predecessors owned and operated an oil refinery in Torrance, California

from 1966 to 2016, shortly after an explosion disabled the refinery. Exxon Co. USA, an

ExxonMobil subsidiary, operated a petroleum refinery in Benicia, California, from 1968 to 2000.

Exxon also—both directly and through its subsidiaries and/or predecessors-in-interest—has

supplied substantial quantities of fossil fuel products to California during the period relevant to

this Complaint. Currently, Exxon promotes, markets, and sells gasoline and other fossil fuel

products to California consumers through approximately 600 Exxon- and Mobil-branded

petroleum service stations in California. During the period relevant to this Complaint, Exxon sold

a substantial percentage of all retail gasoline in California. Exxon also markets and sells

petroleum products, including engine lubricants and motor oils sold under the “Mobil 1” brand

name, to California customers through local retailers.

k. Exxon historically directed its fossil fuel product advertising, marketing, and

promotional campaigns to California residents, including through maps that identify the locations

of its service stations in California. To this day, Exxon continues to market and advertise its fossil

fuel products in California to California residents by maintaining an interactive website available

to prospective customers that directs California residents to Exxon’s nearby retail service stations

and lubricant distributors. Further, Exxon promotes its products in California by regularly

updating and actively promoting its mobile device application, “Exxon Mobil Rewards+,”

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

throughout the State of California, which encourages California users to consume fuel at Exxon

stations in California in exchange for rewards on every fuel purchase.

13. Shell Entities: Shell plc; Shell USA, Inc.; Shell Oil Products Company LLC

a. Defendant Shell plc (formerly Royal Dutch Shell PLC) is a vertically integrated

multinational energy and petrochemical company. Shell plc is incorporated in England and

Wales, with its headquarters and principal place of business in The Hague, Netherlands. Shell plc

is the ultimate parent company of numerous divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates, referred to

collectively as the “Shell Group,” that engage in all aspects of fossil fuel production, including

exploration, development, extraction, manufacturing and energy production, transport, trading,

marketing, and sales.

b. Shell plc controls and has controlled company-wide decisions about the

quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries. Shell

plc’s Board of Directors determines whether and to what extent Shell subsidiary holdings around

the globe produce Shell-branded fossil fuel products.

c. Shell plc controls and has controlled company-wide decisions, including those

of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions and climate change resulting

from the company’s fossil fuel products, and communications strategies concerning climate

change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the environment and

humans. Overall accountability for climate change within the Shell Group lies with Shell plc’s

Chief Executive Officer and Executive Committee. For instance, at least as early as 1988, Shell

plc, through its predecessors and subsidiaries, was researching company-wide CO

emissions and

concluded that the Shell Group accounted for 4% of the CO

emitted worldwide from

combustion, and that climatic changes could compel the Shell Group, as controlled by Shell plc,

to examine the possibilities of expanding and contracting its business accordingly.

d. Defendant Shell USA, Inc. (formerly Shell Oil Company) is a wholly owned

subsidiary of Shell plc that acts on Shell plc’s behalf and is subject to Shell plc’s control. Shell

USA, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas.

Shell USA, Inc. has been registered to do business in California since 1949. Shell USA, Inc. was

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to Shell Oil

Company; Shell Oil; Deer Park Refining LP; Shell Oil Products US; Shell Chemical LP; Shell

Trading (US) Company; Shell Energy Resources Company; Shell Energy Services Company,

L.L.C.; The Pennzoil Company; and Pennzoil-Quaker State Company.

e. Defendant Shell Oil Products Company LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Shell USA, Inc., that acts on Shell USA, Inc.’s behalf and is subject to Shell USA, Inc.’s control.

Shell Oil Products Company LLC is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business

in Houston, Texas, and has been registered to do business in California since 2001. Shell Oil

Products Company LLC was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor

in liability to Shell Oil Products Company, which was a Delaware corporation that converted to a

limited liability company in 2001.

f. Defendants Shell plc, Shell USA, Inc., Shell Oil Products Company LLC, and

their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions are collectively

referred to herein as “Shell.”

g. The State’s claims against Shell arise out of and are related to the acts and

omissions of Shell in California and elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries in California.

h. Shell has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward California by

distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in

California, with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and

will continue to cause climate change-related harms in California, including the State’s injuries.

Shell’s statements in California and elsewhere made in furtherance of its campaign of deception

about and denial of climate change, and Shell’s affirmative promotion of its fossil fuel products

as safe with knowledge of how the intended use of those products would cause climate change-

related harms, were designed to conceal these harms and mislead consumers and the public,

including the State and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences that would result

from continued use of Shell’s products. That conduct was purposefully directed to reach and

influence the State and its residents, to continue unabated use of Shell’s fossil fuel products in

California, thereby resulting in the State’s injuries.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

i. Over the last several decades and continuing to the present day, Shell spent

millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor advertisements in the

California market related to its fossil fuel products. Since at least 1970, and continuing to the

present day, Shell has advertised its fossil fuel products in print publications circulated widely to

California consumers, including but not limited to the following: The Atlantic, The Economist,

Life, National Geographic, Newsweek, The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Time Magazine,

The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. As further detailed herein, these include

advertisements containing false or misleading statements, misrepresentations, and/or material

omissions obfuscating the connection between the production and use of Shell’s fossil fuel

products and climate change, and/or misrepresenting Shell’s products or Shell itself as

environmentally friendly.

j. Significant quantities of Shell’s fossil fuel products are or have been

transported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in

California, from which activities Shell derives and has derived substantial revenue. Shell

conducts and controls, either directly or through franchise agreements, retail fossil fuel sales at

gas station locations throughout California, at which locations it promotes, advertises, and sells its

fossil fuel products under its Shell brand name. Shell operates over 1,000 Shell-branded

petroleum service stations in California. During the period relevant to this Complaint, Shell sold a

substantial percentage of all retail gasoline sold in California. Shell also supplies, markets, and

promotes its Pennzoil line of lubricants at retail and service stations throughout California. From

1924 to 1992, Shell owned and operated an oil refinery in Carson, California, where it now owns

and operates the property as a distribution facility for petroleum and petroleum products

throughout Southern California. From 1915 to 2020, Shell owned and operated an oil refinery in

Martinez, California. From 1998-2007, Shell owned and operated an oil refinery in Wilmington,

California. From 1998 to 2005, Shell owned and operated an oil refinery in Bakersfield,

California.

k. Shell historically directed its fossil fuel product advertising, marketing, and

promotional campaigns to California, including through maps that identified the locations of its

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

service stations in California. Shell markets and advertises its fossil fuel products in California to

California residents by maintaining an interactive website available to prospective customers by

which it directs California residents to Shell’s nearby retail service stations. Shell offers a

proprietary credit card known as the “Shell Fuel Rewards Card,” which allows consumers in

California to pay for gasoline and other products at Shell-branded service stations, and which

encourages consumers to use Shell-branded gas stations by offering various rewards, including

discounts on gasoline purchases. Shell further maintains a smartphone application known as the

“Shell US App” that offers California consumers a cashless payment method for gasoline and

other products at Shell-branded service stations. California consumers utilize the payment method

by providing their credit card information through the application. California consumers can also

receive rewards, including discounts on gasoline purchases, by registering their personal

identifying information in the Shell US App and using the application to identify and activate gas

pumps at Shell service stations during a purchase.

14. Chevron Entities: Chevron Corporation; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.

a. Defendant Chevron Corporation is a multinational, vertically integrated energy

and chemicals company incorporated in Delaware, with its global headquarters and principal

place of business in San Ramon, California. Chevron Corporation, through its predecessor

Standard Oil Company of California, has been registered to do business in California since 1926.

Chevron Corporation was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in

liability to Standard Oil Company of California (also known as “Socal”), Texaco Inc., and

ChevronTexaco Corporation.

b. Chevron Corporation operates through a web of United States and international

subsidiaries at all levels of the fossil fuel supply chain. Chevron Corporation and its subsidiaries’

operations include, but are not limited to: exploration, development, production, storage,

transportation, and marketing of crude oil and natural gas; refining crude oil into petroleum

products and marketing those products; and manufacturing and marketing commodity

petrochemicals, plastics for industrial uses, and fuel and lubricant additives.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

c. Chevron Corporation controls and has controlled company-wide decisions

about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its

subsidiaries. Chevron Corporation determines whether and to what extent its corporate holdings

market, produce, and/or distribute fossil fuel products.

d. Chevron Corporation controls and has controlled company-wide decisions,

including those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions and climate

change resulting from the company’s fossil fuel products, and communications strategies

concerning climate change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the

environment and humans. Overall accountability for climate change within Chevron Corporation

lies with Chevron Corporation’s Board of Directors and Executive Committee.

e. Defendant Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron

Corporation that acts on Chevron Corporation’s behalf and is subject to Chevron Corporation’s

control. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation, with its principal place of business in

San Ramon, California. Through its predecessors, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. has been registered to do

business in California since 1965. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. was formerly known as, did or does

business as, and/or is the successor in liability to Gulf Oil Corporation, Gulf Oil Corporation of

Pennsylvania, Chevron Products Company, and Chevron Chemical Company, and Chevron

Chemical Company LLC.

f. Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., together with their

predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions, are collectively referred

to herein as “Chevron.”

g. The State’s claims against Chevron arise out of and are related to the acts and

omissions of Chevron in California and elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries in

California.

h. Chevron has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward California by

distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in

California, with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and

will continue to cause climate change-related harms in California, including the State’s injuries.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

Chevron’s statements in California and elsewhere made in furtherance of its campaign of

deception about and denial of climate change, and Chevron’s affirmative promotion of its fossil

fuel products as safe with knowledge of how the intended use of those products would cause

climate change-related harms, were designed to conceal and mislead consumers and the public,

including the State and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences that would result

from continued use of Chevron’s products. That conduct was purposefully directed to reach and

influence the State and its residents to continue unabated use of Chevron’s fossil fuel products in

California, thereby resulting in the State’s injuries.

i. Over the last several decades and continuing to the present day, Chevron spent

millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor advertisements in the

California market related to its fossil fuel products. Since at least 1970, and continuing to the

present day, Chevron has advertised in print publications circulated widely to California

consumers, including but not limited to the following: The Atlantic, Life, National Geographic,

The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Time Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, and The

Washington Post. As further detailed herein, these include advertisements containing false or

misleading statements, misrepresentations, and/or material omissions obfuscating the connection

between the production and use of Chevron’s fossil fuel products and climate change, and/or

misrepresenting Chevron’s products or Chevron itself as environmentally friendly.

j. Significant quantities of Chevron’s fossil fuel products are or have been

transported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in

California, from which activities Chevron derives and has derived substantial revenue. Chevron

conducts and controls, either directly or through franchise agreements, retail fossil fuel sales at

gas station locations throughout California, at which locations it promotes, advertises, and sells its

fossil fuel products under its various brand names, including Chevron, Texaco, and other brand

names. Chevron operates over 1,500 Chevron-branded petroleum service stations in California.

Chevron has owned and operated an oil refinery in Richmond, California, since 1902, and has

owned and operated an oil refinery in El Segundo, California, since 1911. During the period

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

relevant to this Complaint, Chevron sold a substantial percentage of all retail gasoline sold in

California.

k. Chevron historically directed its fossil fuel product advertising, marketing, and

promotional campaigns to California, including through maps that identified the locations of its

service stations in California. Chevron markets and advertises its fossil fuel products in California

to California residents by maintaining an interactive website available to prospective customers

by which it directs California residents to Chevron’s nearby retail service stations. Chevron

markets and sells engine lubricants and motor oils to California customers under its Delo,

IsoClean, Techron, and Havoline brand names at retail outlets. Chevron offers a proprietary credit

card known as the “Chevron Techron Advantage Credit Card,” which allows consumers in

California to pay for gasoline and other products at Chevron-branded service stations, and which

encouraged California consumers to use Chevron-branded service stations by offering various

rewards, including discounts on gasoline purchases at Chevron service stations and cash rebates.

Chevron further maintains two smartphone applications known as the “Chevron App” and the

“Texaco App,” both part of the “Chevron Texaco Rewards” program. The program offers

California consumers a cashless payment method for gasoline and other products at Chevron- and

Texaco-branded service stations. California consumers utilize the payment method by providing

their credit card information through the application. California consumers can also receive

rewards, including discounts on gasoline purchases, by registering their personal identifying

information in the apps and by using the applications to identify and activate gas pumps at

Chevron and Texaco service stations during a purchase.

15. ConocoPhillips Entities: ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, Phillips 66,

Phillips 66 Company

a. Defendant ConocoPhillips is a multinational energy company incorporated in

Delaware, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. ConocoPhillips consists of

numerous divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates that execute ConocoPhillips’s fundamental

decisions related to all aspects of fossil fuel production, including exploration, extraction,

production, manufacture, transport, and marketing.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

b. ConocoPhillips controls and has controlled company-wide decisions about the

quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries.

ConocoPhillips determines whether and to what extent its corporate holdings market, produce,

and/or distribute fossil fuel products. ConocoPhillips’s most recent annual report to the Securities

and Exchange Commission subsumes the operations of ConocoPhillips’s subsidiaries. In

ConocoPhillips’s Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for Fiscal Year

2022, the company represents that its value—for which ConocoPhillips maintains ultimate

responsibility—is a function of its decisions to direct subsidiaries to develop crude oil, bitumen,

natural gas, and natural gas liquids from ConocoPhillips’s reserves into fossil fuel products and to

explore for and replace those reserves with more fossil fuels: “Unless we successfully develop

resources, the scope of our business will decline, resulting in an adverse impact to our

business. . . . If we are not successful in replacing the resources we produce with good prospects

for future organic development or through acquisitions, our business will decline.”

ConocoPhillips optimizes the ConocoPhillips group’s oil and gas portfolio to fit ConocoPhillips’s

strategic plan. For example, in November 2016, ConocoPhillips announced a plan to generate $5

billion to $8 billion of proceeds over two years by optimizing its business portfolio, including its

fossil fuel product business, to focus on low cost-of-supply fossil fuel production projects that

strategically fit its development plans.

c. ConocoPhillips controls and has controlled company-wide decisions, including

those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions and climate change

resulting from the company’s fossil fuel products, and communications strategies concerning

climate change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the

environment and humans. For instance, ConocoPhillips’s Board of Directors has the highest level

of direct responsibility for climate change policy within the company. ConocoPhillips has

developed and purportedly implements a corporate Climate Change Action Plan to govern

climate change decision-making across all entities in the ConocoPhillips group.

d. Defendant ConocoPhillips Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of

ConocoPhillips that acts on ConocoPhillips’s behalf and is subject to ConocoPhillips’s control.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

ConocoPhillips Company is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in

Houston, Texas, and has been registered to do business in California since 1947. ConocoPhillips

Company was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to

Phillips Petroleum Company.

e. Defendant Phillips 66 is a multinational energy and petrochemical company

incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. It encompasses

downstream fossil fuel processing, refining, transport, and marketing segments that were formerly

owned and/or controlled by ConocoPhillips.

f. Defendant Phillips 66 Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Phillips 66

that acts on Phillips 66’s behalf and is subject to Phillips 66’s control. Phillips 66 Company is

incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas, and has been

registered to do business in California since 2011. Phillips 66 Company had been registered since

1964 under a different name, Phillips Chemical Company, which was a wholly owned subsidiary

of the Phillips Petroleum Company. Phillips Chemical Company changed its name to Phillips 66

Company in 1985, and that iteration of Phillips 66 Company was terminated in 1991. Phillips 66

Company was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to

Phillips Petroleum Company; Phillips Chemical Company; Conoco, Inc.; Tosco Corporation; and

Tosco Refining Co.

g. Defendants ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, Phillips 66, and Phillips

66 Company, as well as their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and

divisions, are collectively referred to herein as “ConocoPhillips.”

h. The State’s claims against ConocoPhillips arise out of and are related to the acts

and omissions of ConocoPhillips in California and elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries

in California.

i. ConocoPhillips has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward California

by distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in

California, with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and

will continue to cause climate change-related harms in California, including the State’s injuries.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

ConocoPhillips’s statements in California and elsewhere made in furtherance of its campaign of

deception about and denial of climate change, and ConocoPhillips’s affirmative promotion of its

fossil fuel products as safe with knowledge of how the intended use of those products would

cause climate change-related harms, were designed to conceal and mislead consumers and the

public, including the State and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences that would

result from continued use of ConocoPhillips’s products. That conduct was purposefully directed

to reach and influence the State and its residents to continue unabated use of ConocoPhillips’s

fossil fuel products in California, thereby resulting in the State’s injuries.

j. Over the last several decades and continuing to the present day, ConocoPhillips

spent millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor advertisements in

the California market related to its fossil fuel products. Since at least 1970, and continuing to the

present day, ConocoPhillips has advertised in print publications circulated widely to California

consumers, including but not limited to the following: The Atlantic, Life, National Geographic,

Newsweek, The New York Times, People, Sports Illustrated, Time Magazine, The Wall Street

Journal, and The Washington Post. As further detailed herein, these include advertisements

containing false or misleading statements, misrepresentations, and/or material omissions

obfuscating the connection between the production and use of ConocoPhillips’s fossil fuel

products and climate change, and/or misrepresenting ConocoPhillips’s products or

ConocoPhillips itself as environmentally friendly.

k. Significant quantities of ConocoPhillips’s fossil fuel products are or have been

transported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in

California, from which activities ConocoPhillips derives and has derived substantial revenue.

ConocoPhillips conducts and controls, either directly or through franchise agreements, retail

fossil fuel sales at gas station locations throughout California, at which locations it promotes,

advertises, and sells its fossil fuel products under its various brand names, including Conoco,

Phillips 66, and 76. ConocoPhillips also markets and sells to California customers at retail outlets

engine lubricants and motor oils under its Phillips 66, Kendall, and Red Line brand names.

ConocoPhillips operates hundreds of 76-branded petroleum service stations throughout

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

California. During the period relevant to this Complaint, ConocoPhillips sold a substantial

percentage of all retail gasoline sold in California.

l. ConocoPhillips does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in

California, and a substantial quantity of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported,

traded, distributed, marketed, and/or sold in California. For instance, ConocoPhillips owns and/or

operates oil and natural gas terminals in Richmond and Los Angeles, California; owns and

operates oil refineries in Arroyo Grande, Colton, and Wilmington, California; and distributes

ConocoPhillips fossil fuel products throughout California. Phillips 66 also owns and operates oil

refineries in Rodeo, Santa Maria, and Los Angeles, California. All of these refineries were owned

and operated by ConocoPhillips and its predecessors-in-interest from 1997 to 2012.

m. ConocoPhillips has historically directed its fossil fuel product advertising,

marketing, and promotional campaigns to California, including through maps identifying its

services throughout California. ConocoPhillips markets and advertises its fossil fuel products in

California to California residents by maintaining an interactive website available to prospective

customers by which it directs California residents to ConocoPhillips’s nearby retail service

stations. ConocoPhillips offers a proprietary credit card known as the “76 Credit Card,” which

allows consumers in California to pay for gasoline and other products at 76-branded service

stations, and which encourages California consumers to use 76-branded service stations by

offering various rewards, including discounts on gasoline purchases at 76-branded service

stations and cash rebates. ConocoPhillips further maintains a nationwide smartphone application

known as the “Fuel Forward App.” The application offers California consumers a cashless

payment method for gasoline and other products at 76-branded service stations. California

consumers utilize the payment method by providing their credit card information through the

application. California consumers can also apply for a 76 Credit Card through the application. By

registering their personal identifying information in the application and by using the application

to identify and activate gas pumps at 76-branded service stations, California consumers can

receive additional rewards, such as further discounts on ConocoPhillips gasoline purchases.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

16. BP Entities: BP p.l.c., BP America Inc.

a. Defendant BP p.l.c. is a multinational, vertically integrated energy and

petrochemical public limited company registered in England and Wales, with its principal place

of business in London, England. BP p.l.c. consists of three main operating segments: (1)

exploration and production, (2) refining and marketing, and (3) gas power and renewables. BP

p.l.c. is the ultimate parent company of numerous subsidiaries, including Atlantic Richfield

Company, referred to collectively herein as the “BP Group,” which explore for and extract oil and

gas worldwide; refine oil into fossil fuel products such as gasoline; and market and sell oil, fuel,

other refined petroleum products, and natural gas worldwide. BP p.l.c.’s subsidiaries explore for

oil and natural gas under a wide range of licensing and other contractual agreements. BP p.l.c.

was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to British

Petroleum Company, British Petroleum Company p.l.c., BP Amoco p.l.c., Amoco Corporation,

and Atlantic Richfield Company.

b. BP p.l.c. controls and has controlled company-wide decisions about the

quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries. BP p.l.c.

is the ultimate decision-maker with respect to fundamental decisions about the BP Group’s core

business, e.g., the level of fossil fuel production companywide, including production among BP

p.l.c.’s subsidiaries. For instance, BP p.l.c. reported that in 2016-17, it brought online 13 major

exploration and production projects. These contributed to a 12% increase in the BP Group’s

overall fossil fuel product production. These projects were carried out by BP p.l.c.’s subsidiaries.

Based on these projects, BP p.l.c. noted that it expected the BP Group to deliver to customers

900,000 barrels of new product per day by 2021. BP p.l.c. further reported that in 2017 it

sanctioned three new exploration projects in Trinidad, India, and the Gulf of Mexico.

c. BP p.l.c. controls and has controlled company-wide decisions, including those

of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions and climate change resulting

from the company’s fossil fuel products, and communications strategies concerning climate

change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the environment and

humans. BP p.l.c. makes fossil fuel production decisions for the entire BP Group based on factors

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

including climate change. BP p.l.c.’s Board of Directors is the highest decision-making body

within the company, with direct responsibility for the BP Group’s climate change policy. BP

p.l.c.’s chief executive is responsible for maintaining the BP Group’s system of internal control

that governs the BP Group’s business conduct. BP p.l.c.’s senior leadership directly oversees a

“carbon steering group,” which manages climate change-related matters and consists of two

committees—both overseen directly by the Board of Directors—that focus on climate change-

related investments.

d. Defendant BP America Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of BP p.l.c. that acts

on BP p.l.c.’s behalf and is subject to BP p.l.c.’s control. BP America Inc. is a vertically

integrated energy and petrochemical company incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its

headquarters and principal place of business in Houston, Texas, and has been registered to do

business in California since 2000. BP America Inc. consists of numerous divisions and affiliates

in all aspects of fossil fuel production, including exploration for and production of crude oil and

natural gas; manufacture of petroleum products; and transportation, marketing, and sale of crude

oil, natural gas, and petroleum products. BP America Inc. was formerly known as, did or does

business as, and/or is the successor in liability to Amoco Oil Company; Amoco Production

Company; ARCO Products Company; BP Exploration & Oil, Inc.; BP Products North America

Inc.; BP Amoco Corporation; BP Oil, Inc.; BP Oil Company; Sohio Oil Company; Standard Oil

of Ohio (SOHIO); Standard Oil (Indiana); and Atlantic Richfield Company (a Pennsylvania

Corporation) and its division, the Arco Chemical Company.

e. Defendants BP p.l.c. and BP America Inc., together with their predecessors,

successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions, are collectively referred to herein as

“BP.”

f. The State’s claims against BP arise out of and are related to the acts and

omissions of BP in California and BP’s actions elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries in

California.

g. BP has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward California by

distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

California, with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion have caused

and will continue to cause climate change-related harms in California, including the State’s

injuries. BP’s statements in California and elsewhere made in furtherance of its campaign of

deception about and denial of climate change, and BP’s affirmative promotion of its fossil fuel

products as safe with knowledge of how the intended use of those products would cause climate

change-related harms, were designed to conceal and mislead consumers and the public, including

the State and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences that would result from

continued use of BP’s products. That conduct was purposefully directed to reach and influence

the State and its residents to continue unabated use of BP’s fossil fuel products in California,

thereby resulting in the State’s injuries.

h. Over the last several decades and continuing to the present day, BP—especially

BP p.l.c.—spent millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor

advertisements in the California market related to its fossil fuel products. Since at least 1988 and

continuing to the present day, BP has advertised in print publications circulated widely to

California consumers, including but not limited to the following: The Atlantic, Life, Newsweek,

The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Time, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington

Post. As further detailed herein, these include advertisements containing false or misleading

statements, misrepresentations, and/or material omissions obfuscating the connection between the

production and use of BP’s fossil fuel products and climate change, and/or misrepresenting BP’s

products or BP itself as environmentally friendly.

i. Significant quantities of BP’s fossil fuel products are or have been transported,

traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in California, from

which activities BP derives and has derived substantial revenue. BP conducts and controls, either

directly or through franchise agreements, retail fossil fuel sales at gas station locations in

substantial portions of California, at which locations it promotes, advertises, and sells its fossil

fuel products under its ARCO brand name. Among other operations, BP operates more than 300

ARCO-licensed and branded gas stations in California, and distributes and markets petroleum-

based lubricants marketed under the Castrol brand name throughout California. From 2000 to

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

2013, BP also owned and operated an oil refinery in Carson, California. During the period

relevant to this Complaint, BP sold a substantial percentage of all retail gasoline sold in

California. BP’s marketing and trading business maintains an office in Irvine, California. BP

maintains an energy research center in San Diego, California.

j. BP historically directed its fossil fuel product advertising, marketing, and

promotional campaigns to California, including through maps that identified the locations of its

service stations in California. BP markets and advertises its fossil fuel products in California to

California residents by maintaining an interactive website available to prospective customers by

which it directs California residents to BP’s nearby retail service stations and/or lubricant

distributors.

17. The Exxon, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP entities set forth above are

collectively referred to as the “Fossil Fuel Defendants.”

18. American Petroleum Institute

a. Defendant American Petroleum Institute (API) is a nonprofit corporation based

in the District of Columbia and registered to do business in California. API was created in 1919 to

represent the American oil and gas industry as a whole. With more than 600 members, API is the

country’s largest oil trade association. API’s purpose is to advance its members’ collective

business interests, which includes increasing consumer consumption of oil and gas for the

financial profit of the Fossil Fuel Defendants and other oil and gas companies. Among other

functions, API also coordinates members of the petroleum industry, gathers information of

interest to the industry, and disseminates that information to its members.

b. Acting on behalf of and under the supervision and control of the Fossil Fuel

Defendants, API has, since at least 1988, participated in and led several coalitions, front groups,

and organizations that have promoted disinformation about the climate impacts of fossil fuel

products to consumers—including, but not limited to, the Global Climate Coalition, Partnership

for a Better Energy Future, Coalition for American Jobs, Alliance for Energy and Economic

Growth, and Alliance for Climate Strategies. These front groups were formed to promote climate

disinformation and advocacy from a purportedly objective source, when in fact these groups were

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

financed and controlled by the Fossil Fuel Defendants and other oil and gas companies. The

Fossil Fuel Defendants have benefited from the spread of this disinformation because, among

other things, it has ensured a thriving consumer market for oil and gas, resulting in substantial

profits for the Fossil Fuel Defendants.

c. API’s stated mission includes “influenc[ing] public policy in support of a

strong, viable U.S. oil and natural gas industry,” which includes increasing consumers’

consumption of oil and gas for the financial benefit of the Fossil Fuel Defendants and other oil

and gas companies. In effect, API acts and has acted as a marketing arm for its member

companies, including the Fossil Fuel Defendants. Over the last several decades, API has spent

millions of dollars on television, newspaper, radio, social media, and internet advertisements in

the California market.

d. Member companies participate in API strategy, governance, and operation

through their membership dues and by contributing company officers and other personnel to API

boards, committees, and task forces. The Fossil Fuel Defendants have collectively steered the

policies and trade practices of API through membership, Executive Committee roles, and/or

providing budgetary funding for API. The Fossil Fuel Defendants have used their control over

and involvement in API to develop and execute a long-term advertising and communications

campaign centered on climate change denialism. The goal of the campaign was to influence

consumer demand for the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products. The Fossil Fuel

Defendants directly controlled, supervised, and participated in API’s misleading messaging

regarding climate change.

e. In addition to national promotional campaigns circulated in California, API has

also targeted California consumers directly by creating and disseminating misleading

advertisements that distinctly promote consumption of fossil fuel products in California. API has

run numerous press releases within California touting the direct and indirect benefits to California

of the oil and gas industries’ operations in California and elsewhere in the United States. The

reports, sponsored by API, on which API bases its claims, do not mention climate change at all,

nor do the reports mention any of the direct and indirect harms to California caused by the

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

production, marketing, sale, and use of API members’ fossil fuel products. Further, API’s

Department of Production sponsors two local API chapters in California, the Coastal Chapter and

the San Joaquin Valley Chapter, which function “to promote a more cordial understanding by the

public of the close economic relationship that exists between the petroleum industry and other

lines of business.” API also regularly hosts within California trade association events for oil and

gas and related industries.

f. All of the Fossil Fuel Defendants and/or their predecessors-in-interest have

been key API members at all times relevant to this Complaint. All of the Fossil Fuel Defendants

are currently members of API. Executives from Exxon, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP

have served on the API Executive Committee and/or as API Chairman, essentially serving as

corporate officers. For example, Exxon’s CEO served on API’s Executive Committee for 15 of

the 25 years between 1991 and 2016 (1991, 1996-1997, 2001, 2005-2016). BP’s CEO served as

API’s Chairman in 1988, 1989, and 1998. Chevron’s CEO served as API Chairman in 1994,

1995, 2003, and 2012. Shell’s President served on API’s Executive Committee from 2005 to

2006. ConocoPhillips Chairman and CEO Ryan Lance was API Board President from 2016 to

2018, and Exxon President and CEO Darren Woods was API Board President from 2018 to 2020.

In 2020, API elected Phillips 66 Chairman and CEO Greg Garland to serve a two-year term as its

Board President. Executives from ConocoPhillips also served as members of API’s Board of

Directors at various times.

g. Relevant information was shared among API and the Fossil Fuel Defendants

and the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ predecessors-in-interest through the following: (1) API’s

distribution of information to its members, and/or (2) participation of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’

officers and other personnel, and those of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ predecessors-in-interest, on

API boards, committees, and task forces.

h. The State’s claims against API arise out of and are related to the acts and

omissions of API in California and elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries in California.

19. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise

of Defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is

informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is

responsible in some manner for the acts and occurrences herein alleged, and that the State’s

harms were caused by such Defendants.

C. Relevant Non-Parties: Defendants’ Agents/Front Groups

20. As detailed below, each Fossil Fuel Defendant had actual knowledge, or should have

known, that its fossil fuel products were hazardous in that the intended use of the fossil fuel

products for combustion would substantially contribute to climate change and result in harms to

the State. The Fossil Fuel Defendants obtained knowledge of the hazards of their products

independently and through their membership and involvement in trade associations such as API.

21. The Fossil Fuel Defendants and API employed, financed, and participated in several

industry-created front groups to serve their mission of flooding the markets with climate change

disinformation and denialism. These organizations, acting on behalf of and under the supervision

and control of the Fossil Fuel Defendants, assisted the deception campaign by implementing

public advertising and outreach campaigns to discredit climate science, funding scientists to cast

doubt upon climate science and upon the extent to which climate change is caused by human

activity. In sum, the Fossil Fuel Defendants, through their front groups, engaged in a significant

marketing campaign that misrepresented and concealed the dangers of their fossil fuel products

with the aim of protecting or enhancing sales of these products to consumers, including

consumers in California. Defendants actively supervised, facilitated, consented to, and/or directly

participated in the misleading messaging of these front groups, from which the Fossil Fuel

Defendants profited significantly, including in the form of increased sales in California.

22. The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was an industry group formed to preserve and

expand consumer demand for fossil fuels by publicly casting doubt on climate science and

opposing GHG emission reduction initiatives. GCC was founded in 1989 in reaction to the first

meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body for

assessing the science related to climate change, and to NASA scientist James Hansen’s

presentation to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in which Hansen

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

emphasized that climate change was already happening and would lead to dire consequences if

left unaddressed. GCC disbanded in or around 2001. Founding members included API, Shell Oil

Company (currently, Shell); Texaco, Inc. (currently, Chevron); Amoco (currently, BP); ARCO

(owned by BP at the time); and Phillips Petroleum Company (currently, ConocoPhillips). Tom

Lambrix, director of government relations for Phillips Petroleum, was chairman of GCC.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

23. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to article VI, section 10,

of the California Constitution.

24. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, pursuant to Code of Civil

Procedure section 410.10, because each Defendant purposefully availed itself of the California

market, and thus of the benefits of the laws of the State, during all times relevant to this

Complaint, so as to render California courts’ exercise of jurisdiction over each Defendant

consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Each Fossil Fuel Defendant

researched, developed, manufactured, designed, marketed, distributed, released, promoted, and/or

otherwise sold its fossil fuel products in markets around the United States, including within

California.

25. Additionally, jurisdiction is proper over each non-resident Defendant for the

following reasons:

a. With respect to its subsidiaries, each non-resident Fossil Fuel Defendant parent

controls and has controlled decisions about the quantity and extent of its fossil fuel production

and sales; determines whether and to what extent to market, produce, and/or distribute its fossil

fuel products; and controls and has controlled decisions related to its marketing and advertising,

specifically communications strategies concerning climate change and the link between fossil fuel

use and impacts on the environment. Each non-resident Fossil Fuel Defendant parent has the

power to direct and control its non-resident subsidiaries named here. Thus, each subsidiary is the

agent of its parent. As agents, the subsidiaries of each non-resident Fossil Fuel Defendant

conducted activities in California at the direction and for the benefit of its parent company.

Specifically, the subsidiaries furthered each parent company’s campaign of deception and denial

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

through misrepresentations, omissions, and affirmative promotion of the company’s fossil fuel

products as safe with knowledge of the climate change-related harms that would result from the

intended use of those products, all of which resulted in climate change-related injuries in the State

and increased sales to the parent company. Therefore, the subsidiaries’ jurisdictional activities are

properly attributed to each parent company and serve as a basis to assert jurisdiction over each of

the non-resident Fossil Fuel Defendant parent companies.

b. Through their various agreements with dealers, franchises, or otherwise, the

Fossil Fuel Defendants direct and control the branding, marketing, sales, promotions, image

development, signage, and advertising of their branded fossil fuel products at their respectively

branded gas stations in California, including point-of-sale advertising and marketing. The Fossil

Fuel Defendants dictate which grades and formulations of their gasoline may be sold at their

respectively branded stations.

c. The Fossil Fuel Defendants, by and through API and other organizations like

GCC, conspired to conceal and misrepresent the known dangers of burning fossil fuels, to

knowingly withhold material information regarding the consequences of using fossil fuel

products, to spread knowingly false and misleading information to the public regarding the

weight of climate science research, and to engage in massive campaigns to promote continued

and increased use of their fossil fuel products, which they knew would result in injuries to the

State. Through their own actions and through their membership and participation in climate

denialist front groups, API and each Fossil Fuel Defendant were and are members of this

conspiracy. Defendants committed substantial acts to further the conspiracy in California by

making affirmative misrepresentations to California consumers, as well as misleading them by

omission, about the existence, causes, and effects of global warming; and by affirmatively

promoting the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products as safe, with knowledge of the

disastrous impacts that would result from the intended use of those products. A substantial effect

of this conspiracy has also and will also occur in California, as the State has suffered and will

suffer injuries from Defendants’ wrongful conduct, including but not limited to the following:

extreme heat, severe droughts, water shortages, catastrophic wildfires, public health injuries,

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

massive storms, flooding, damage to agriculture, sea level rise, coastal erosion, damage to

ecosystems and habitat, biodiversity disruption, and other social and economic consequences of

these environmental changes. Defendants knew or should have known—based on information

provided to them from their internal research divisions, affiliates, trade associations, and industry

groups—that their actions in California and elsewhere would result in these injuries in and to the

State. Finally, the climate effects described herein are direct and foreseeable results of

Defendants’ conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.

26. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 393,

subdivision (a), because the violations of law and the public nuisance alleged in this Complaint

occurred in San Francisco County and throughout California.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Defendants Are Substantially Responsible for Causing and Accelerating

Climate Change

27. The earth’s atmosphere is warming, sea level is rising, snow and ice cover is

diminishing, oceans are warming and acidifying, and hydrologic systems have been altered,

among other rapidly accelerating changes to our climate. These changes are directly harming

people’s health, lives, lifestyles, and livelihoods. According to the IPCC, the evidence that

humans are causing this warming of the Earth is unequivocal.

28. Greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities are the most significant driver

of climate change and ocean acidification.

Over the past couple of decades, those emission rates

have accelerated, exceeding those predicted under previous “worst case” global emissions

scenarios. The severity of the continuing impacts of climate change on California will depend on

the success of mitigation and adaptation efforts in California and on the reduction of fossil fuel

consumption.

IPCC, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working

Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(2021) pp. v, 4, 41, 63, 150, 425, 506, available at

https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Id. at p. 41.

See Bedsworth et al., Statewide Summary Report, California’s Fourth Climate Change

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

29. Greenhouse gases are largely byproducts of human combustion of fossil fuels to

produce energy and use of fossil fuels to create petrochemical products. While there are several

greenhouse gases contributing to climate change, CO

is the primary greenhouse gas emitted as a

result of human activities.

30. Prior to World War II, most anthropogenic CO

emissions were caused by land-use

practices, such as forestry and agriculture, which altered the ability of the land and global

biosphere to absorb CO

from the atmosphere. The impacts of such activities on Earth’s climate

were relatively minor. Since that time, however, both the annual rate and total volume of

anthropogenic CO

emissions have increased enormously following the dramatic rise of the

combustion of oil, gas, and coal, in particular in transportation and the stationary energy market.

31. The graph below illustrates that fossil fuel emissions are the dominant source of

increases in atmospheric CO

since the mid-twentieth century:

Figure 1: Annual Global Emissions, 1850–2020

Assessment (2018) pp. 8-13, 20, 70, available at https://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ (as

of Sept. 14, 2023).

Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Budget 2021 (Nov. 4, 2021) p. 83, available at

https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/archive/2021/GCP_CarbonBudget_2021.pdf

(as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

32. This acceleration of fossil fuel emissions has led to a correspondingly sharp rise in

atmospheric concentration of CO

. Since 1960, the concentration of CO

in the atmosphere has

spiked from under 320 parts per million (ppm) to approximately 423 ppm.

The concentration of

atmospheric CO

has also been accelerating. From 1960 to 1970, atmospheric CO

increased by

an average of approximately 0.9 ppm per year; over the last five years, it has increased by

approximately 2.4 ppm per year.

33. Figure 2 indicates the tight nexus between the sharp increase in emissions from the

combustion of fossil fuels and the steep rise of atmospheric concentrations of CO

Figure 2: Atmospheric CO

Concentration and Annual Emissions

34. Because of the increased burning of fossil fuel products, concentrations of greenhouse

gases in the atmosphere are now at an unprecedented level, one not seen in at least three million

years.

Global Monitoring Laboratory, NOAA, Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Full

Record, available at https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/mlo.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Global Monitoring Laboratory, NOAA, Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Growth

Rate, available at https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Lindsey, NOAA, Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (May 12, 2023),

available at https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-

atmospheric-carbon-dioxide (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

More CO2 Than Ever Before in 3 Million Years, Shows Unprecedented Computer

Simulation, Science Daily (Apr. 3, 2019), available at

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190403155436.htm (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

35. As greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, the Earth radiates less energy

back to space. This accumulation and associated disruption of the Earth’s energy balance have

myriad environmental and physical consequences, including, but not limited to, the following:

a. Warming of the Earth’s average surface temperature, both locally and globally,

and increased frequency and intensity of heat waves. To date, global average surface temperatures

have risen approximately 1.09°C (1.96°F) above preindustrial temperatures; temperatures in

particular locations have risen more.

b. Changes to the global climate generally, bringing about longer droughts and dry

periods interspersed with fewer and more severe periods of precipitation, and associated impacts

to the quantity and quality of water resources available to both human and ecological systems.

c. Increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events due to increases in

evaporation, evapotranspiration, and precipitation, a consequence of the warming atmosphere’s

increased ability to hold moisture.

d. Adverse impacts on human health associated with extreme weather, extreme

heat, worsening air quality, and vector-borne illnesses.

e. Flooding and inundation of land and infrastructure, increased erosion, higher

wave run-up and tides, increased frequency and severity of storm surges, saltwater intrusion, and

other impacts of higher sea levels.

f. Sea level rise, due to the thermal expansion of warming ocean waters and

runoff from melting glaciers and ice sheets.

g. Ocean acidification, primarily due to the increased uptake of atmospheric

carbon dioxide by the oceans.

h. Changes to terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and consequent impacts on the

populations and ranges of flora and fauna.

36. As discussed below, these consequences of Defendants’ tortious and deceptive

conduct and its exacerbation of the climate crisis are already impacting California, its

communities, its people’s health, and its natural resources, and these impacts will continue to

increase in severity. Absent Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct and resultant

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

contributions to global warming, these harmful effects would have been far less extreme than

those currently occurring. Similarly, future harmful effects would also have been far less

detrimental—or would have been avoided entirely.

37. From at least 1965 until the present, Defendants unduly inflated the market for fossil

fuel products by aggressively promoting the use of these products while knowing their associated

dangers, and by misrepresenting and concealing the hazards of those products to deceive

consumers and the public about the consequences of everyday use of fossil fuel products.

Consequently, substantially more anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been emitted into the

environment than would have been emitted absent Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct.

38. By quantifying GHG pollution attributable to the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ products

and conduct, climatic and environmental responses to those emissions are also calculable and can

be attributed to the Fossil Fuel Defendants both on an individual and an aggregate basis.

39. Defendants’ tortious, deceptive, and unconscionable conduct, as alleged herein,

caused a substantial portion of the global atmospheric GHG concentrations, and the past,

ongoing, and future disruptions to the environment—and consequent injuries to California, its

communities, and its resources—associated therewith.

40. Defendants, individually and collectively, have substantially and measurably

contributed to California’s climate crisis-related injuries.

B. Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand the Dangers Associated

with Fossil Fuel Products, and Either Knew or Should Have Known of

Those Dangers

41. Defendants have known about the potential warming effects of GHG emissions since

as early as the 1950s, and they developed a sophisticated understanding of climate change that far

exceeded the knowledge of the general public. Although it was concealed at the time, the

See, e.g., Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-

Millennial Climate and Sea-Level Change (2016) 6 Nature Climate Change 360, 365 (“Our

modelling suggests that the human carbon footprint of about [470 billion tons] by 2000 . . . has

already committed Earth to a [global mean sea level] rise of ~1.7m (range of 1.2 to 2.2 m).”).

See Heede, Tracing Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emissions to Fossil

Fuel and Cement Producers, 1854–2010 (2014) 122 Climatic Change 229, available at

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

industry’s knowledge was uncovered in 2015 by journalists at Inside Climate News and the Los

Angeles Times, among others.

42. In 1954, geochemist Harrison Brown and his colleagues at the California Institute of

Technology wrote to API, informing the trade association of their finding that fossil fuels had

caused atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to increase by about 5% since 1840.

API continued to

fund the scientists for various research projects and measurements of carbon dioxide, but the

results were never published.

In 1957, H.R. Brannon of Humble Oil Company (predecessor-in-

interest to Exxon) measured an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide attributable to fossil fuels,

similar to—and in agreement with—that measured by Harrison Brown.

43. In 1959, API organized an oil industry celebration in New York City.

High-level oil

industry executives were in attendance, and one of the keynote speakers was the nuclear physicist

Edward Teller. Teller warned the industry that “a temperature rise corresponding to a 10[%]

increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge . . . [a]ll the coastal

cities.” Teller added that since “a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal

regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to

believe.”

Following his speech, Teller was asked to “summarize briefly the danger from

See, e.g., Banerjee et al., Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in

Global Warming Decades Ago, L.A. Times (Sept. 16, 2015), available at

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-

in-global-warming/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023); Jennings et al., How Exxon went from leader to skeptic

on climate change research, L.A. Times (Oct. 23, 2015), available at

https://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research (as of Sept. 13, 2023); Jerving et al., What Exxon

knew about the Earth’s melting Arctic, L.A. Times (Oct. 9, 2015), available at

https://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023); Lieberman et al., Big Oil braced

for global warming while it fought regulations, L.A. Times (Dec. 31, 2015), available at

https://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Franta, Early Oil Industry Knowledge of CO2 and Global Warming (2018) 8 Nature

Climate Change 1024, 1024.

Ibid.

Ibid.; Brannon, Jr. et al., Radiocarbon Evidence on the Dilution of Atmospheric and

Oceanic Carbon by Carbon from Fossil Fuels (1957) 38 Am. Geophysical Union Transactions

643, 644-46.

See Nevins & Dunlop, Energy and Man: A Symposium (1960). See also Franta, Early

Oil Industry Knowledge of CO2 and Global Warming, supra, p. 1024.

Edward Teller, Energy Patterns of the Future, in Energy and Man: A Symposium

(1960) p. 58.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

increased carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere in this century.” He responded that “there is a

possibility the icecaps will start melting and the level of the oceans will begin to rise.”

44. In 1965, the president of API, Frank Ikard, addressed leaders of the petroleum

industry at the trade association’s annual meeting. Ikard relayed the findings of a recent report to

industry leaders, saying, “[o]ne of the most important predictions of the report is that carbon

dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at

such a rate that by the year 2000 the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause marked

changes in climate beyond local or even national efforts,” and quoting the report’s finding that

“the pollution from internal combustion engines is so serious, and is growing so fast, that an

alternative nonpolluting means of powering automobiles, buses, and trucks is likely to become a

national necessity.”

45. Thus, by 1965, Defendants and their predecessors-in-interest were aware that the

scientific community had found that fossil fuel products, if their use continued to grow, would

cause global warming by the end of the century, and that such global warming would have wide-

ranging and costly consequences.

46. In 1968, API received a report from the Stanford Research Institute, which it had

hired to assess the state of research on environmental pollutants, including carbon dioxide.

The

assessment stated: “Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000,

and . . . there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe.”

The scientists warned of “melting of the Antarctic ice cap” and informed API that “[p]ast and

present studies of CO

are detailed and seem to explain adequately the present state of CO

in the

atmosphere.” What was missing, the scientists said, was work on “air pollution technology

and . . . systems in which CO

emissions would be brought under control.”

Id. at p. 70.

Ikard, Meeting the Challenges of 1966, in Proceedings of the American Petroleum

Institute (1965) p. 13, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5348130-1965-

API-Proceedings (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Robinson & Robbins, Stanford Research Institute, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of

Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants (Feb. 1968) pp. 109-10, available at

https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Id. at pp. 108, 112.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

47. In 1969, the Stanford Research Institute delivered a supplemental report on air

pollution to API, projecting with alarming particularity that atmospheric CO

concentrations

would reach 370 ppm by 2000.

This projection turned out to almost exactly match the actual

concentrations measured in 2000 of 369.64 ppm.

The report explicitly connected the rise in

levels to the combustion of fossil fuels, finding it “unlikely that the observed rise in

atmospheric CO

has been due to changes in the biosphere.”

By virtue of their membership and

participation in API at that time, the Fossil Fuel Defendants received or should have received the

Stanford Research Institute reports, and thus were on notice of the conclusions in those reports.

48. In 1977, James Black of Exxon gave a presentation to Exxon executives on the

“greenhouse effect,” which was summarized in an internal memo the following year. Black

reported that “current scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors attributing atmospheric carbon

dioxide increase to fossil fuel consumption,” and that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide

would, according to the best climate model available, “produce a mean temperature increase of

about 2°C to 3°C over most of the earth,” with two to three times as much warming at the poles.

Black reported that the impacts of global warming would include “more rainfall,” which would

“benefit some areas and would harm others,” and that “[s]ome countries would benefit, but others

could have their agricultural output reduced or destroyed.” “Even those nations which are

favored, however, would be damaged for a while since their agricultural and industrial patterns

have been established on the basis of the present climate.” Finally, Black reported that “[p]resent

Robinson & Robbins, Stanford Research Institute, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of

Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants Supplement (June 1969) p. 3.

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Global Mean CO

Mixing Ratios (ppm):

Observations, available at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt (as of Sept.

13, 2023).

Robinson & Robbins, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric

Pollutants Supplement, supra, p. 19.

Abstracts of the Stanford Research Institute studies were included in a 1972 API status

report to its members. See American Petroleum Institute, Committee for Air and Water

Conservation, Environmental Research: A Status Report (Jan. 1972) p. 103, available at

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED066339.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

J.F. Black, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., memorandum to F.G. Turpin, Exxon

Research and Engineering Co. re The Greenhouse Effect (June 6, 1978) pp. 2, 23, available at

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805568-1978-Exxon-Presentation-on-Greenhouse-

Effect (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions

regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”

The figure below, reproduced

from Black’s memo, illustrates Exxon’s understanding of the timescale and magnitude of global

warming that its products would cause.

Figure 3: Future Global Warming Predicted Internally by Exxon in 1978

49. In 1979, an internal Exxon memorandum stated, “The most widely held theory [about

the increase in CO

concentration in the atmosphere] is that: The increase is due to fossil fuel

combustion; [i]ncreasing CO

concentration will cause a warming of the earth’s surface; [and t]he

present trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause dramatic environmental effects before the year

2050. . . . The potential problem is great and urgent.” The memo added that, if limits were not

placed on fossil fuel production,

Noticeable temperature changes would occur around 2010 as the [CO

] concentration

reaches 400 ppm. Significant climatic changes occur around 2035 when the

concentration approaches 500 ppm. A doubling of the pre-industrial concentration

Id. at p. 2.

Id. at p. 26. The company predicted global warming of 1°C to 3°C by 2050, with 10°C

warming in polar regions. The difference between the lower dashed and solid curves prior to 1977

represents global warming that Exxon believed may already have been occurring. (Ibid.)

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

[i.e., 580 ppm] occurs around 2050. The doubling would bring about dramatic

changes in the world’s environment[.]

50. Those projections proved remarkably accurate. Annual average atmospheric CO

concentrations surpassed 400 ppm in 2015 for the first time in millions of years.

Limiting the

carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere to 440 ppm, or a 50% increase over preindustrial

levels, which the Exxon memo said was “assumed to be a relatively safe level for the

environment,” would require fossil fuel emissions to peak in the 1990s and non-fossil energy

systems to be rapidly deployed. Eighty percent of fossil fuel resources, the memo calculated,

would have to be left in the ground to avoid doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

Certain fossil fuels, such as shale oil, could not be substantially exploited at all.

51. But instead of heeding these dire and repeated warnings, in November 1979,

according to internal correspondence, Exxon urged “a very aggressive defensive program in . . .

atmospheric science and climate because there is a good probability that legislation affecting our

business will be passed.”

It urged an expanded research effort to “influence possible legislation

on environmental controls” and suggested the formation of a “small task force” to evaluate a

potential program in CO

and climate, acid rain, carcinogens, fine particulates, and other pollution

issues caused by fossil fuels.

52. In 1979, API and its members, including the Fossil Fuel Defendants, convened a Task

Force to monitor and share cutting-edge climate research among members of the oil industry.

This Climate and Energy Task Force (hereinafter referred to as “CO

Task Force”) included

senior scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas

W.L. Ferrall, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., memorandum to Dr. R.L. Hirsch re

Controlling Atmospheric CO

(Oct. 16, 1979) pp. 1-2, 5, available at

https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mqwl0228 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Jones, How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters, Yale Env’t 360

(Jan. 26, 2017), available at http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-

threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

W.L. Ferrall, Controlling Atmospheric CO

, supra, pp. 3, 6-7.

H. Shaw memorandum to H.N. Weinberg re Research in Atmospheric Science (Nov.

19, 1979) p. 2, available at https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yqwl0228 (as of Sept.

13, 2023).

Id. at pp. 1-2.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

company—including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, and Standard Oil of Ohio, as

well as Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil, the predecessors to Chevron—and was charged

with monitoring research, evaluating the implications of emerging science for the petroleum and

gas industries, and identifying where potential reductions in GHG emissions from Defendants’

fossil fuel products could be made.

53. In 1979, a paper prepared by API for the CO

Task Force asserted that CO

concentrations were rising, and predicted that, although global warming would occur, it would

likely go undetected until approximately the year 2000 because its effects were being temporarily

masked by a natural cooling trend, which would revert to a warming trend around 1990, adding to

the warming caused by CO

54. In 1980, at the invitation of the CO

Task Force, climate expert J. Laurman delivered

to API members a presentation providing a “complete technical discussion” of global warming

caused by fossil fuels, including “the scientific basis and technical evidence of CO

buildup,

impact on society, methods of modeling and their consequences, uncertainties, policy

implications, and conclusions that can be drawn from present knowledge.”

Laurmann informed

the CO

Task Force of the “scientific consensus on the potential for large future climatic response

to increased CO

levels” and that there was “strong empirical evidence that [the carbon dioxide]

rise [was] caused by anthropogenic release of CO

, mainly from fossil fuel burning.”

According

to Laurmann, unless fossil fuel production and use were controlled, atmospheric carbon dioxide

would be twice preindustrial levels by 2038, using a 3% per annum growth of atmospheric release

rate, with “likely impacts” along the following trajectory:

Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too,

Inside Climate News (Dec. 22, 2015), available at

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-

climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco/ (as of

Sept. 13, 2023).

R.J. Campion memorandum to J.T. Burgess re Comments on The API’s Background

Paper on CO2 Effects (Sept. 6, 1979), available at

https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lqwl0228 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

J. J. Nelson, American Petroleum Institute, letter to AQ-9 Task Force re The CO2

Problem; Addressing Research Agenda Development (Mar. 18, 1980) p. 2, available at

https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/gffl0228 (as of Sept. 14, 2023).

Id. at pp. 9-10 (full capitalization in original removed).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

1°C RISE (2005): BARELY NOTICEABLE

2.5°C

RISE

(2038):

MAJOR

ECONOMIC

CONSEQUENCES,

STRONG

REGIONAL DEPENDENCE

5°C RISE (2067): GLOBALLY CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS

Laurmann warned the CO

Task Force that global warming of 2.5°C would “bring[] world

economic growth to a halt.” The minutes of the meeting, which were distributed to the entire CO

Task Force, show that one of the Task Force’s goals was “to help develop ground rules for … the

cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO

creation,” and the Task Force discussed potential research

into the market and technical requirements for a worldwide “energy source changeover” away

from fossil fuels.

55. In 1980, a Canadian Esso (Exxon) company reported to managers and staff at

affiliated Esso and Exxon companies that there was “no doubt” that fossil fuels were aggravating

the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that “[t]echnology exists to remove CO2 from stack

gases but removal of only 50% of the CO2 would double the cost of power generation.”

56. In December 1980, an Exxon manager distributed a memorandum on the “CO

Greenhouse Effect” attributing future buildup of carbon dioxide to fossil fuel use, and explaining

that internal calculations indicated that atmospheric carbon dioxide could double by around 2060,

“most likely” resulting in global warming of approximately 3.0 ± 1.5°C.

Calculations predicting

a lower temperature increase, such as 0.25°C, were “not held in high regard by the scientific

community[.]” The memo also reported that such global warming would cause “increased

rainfall[] and increased evaporation,” which would have a “dramatic impact on soil moisture, and

in turn, on agriculture” and other “serious global problems[.]” The memo called for “society” to

pay the bill, estimating that some adaptive measures would cost no more than “a few percent” of

Id. at pp. 1, 13.

Imperial Oil Ltd., Review of Environmental Protection Activities for 1978–1979 (Aug.

6, 1980) p. 2, available at http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2827784-1980-Imperial-

Oil-Review-of- Environmental.html#document/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Henry Shaw memorandum to T.K. Kett re Exxon Research and Engineering Company’s

Technological Forecast: CO2 Greenhouse Effect (Dec. 18, 1980) p. 3, available at

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805573-1980-Exxon-Memo-Summarizing-Current-

Models-And.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

Gross National Product.

Shaw also reported that Exxon had studied various responses for

avoiding or reducing a carbon dioxide build-up, including “stopping all fossil fuel combustion at

the 1980 rate” and “investigat[ing] the market penetration of non-fossil fuel technologies.” The

memo estimated that such non-fossil energy technologies “would need about 50 years to penetrate

and achieve roughly half of the total [energy] market.”

The memo included the figure below,

which illustrates both the global warming anticipated by Exxon and the company’s understanding

that significant global warming would occur:

Figure 4: Future Global Warming Predicted Internally by Exxon in 1980

57. In February 1981, Exxon’s Contract Research Office prepared and distributed a

“Scoping Study on CO

” to the leadership of Exxon Research and Engineering Company.

The

study reviewed Exxon’s carbon dioxide research and considered whether to expand its research

Id. at pp. 3-5.

Id. at pp. 5-6.

Id. at p. 12. The company anticipated a doubling of carbon dioxide by around 2060 and

that the oceans would delay the warming effect by a few decades, leading to approximately 3°C

warming by the end of the century.

G.H. Long, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., letter to P.J. Lucchesi et al. re

Atmospheric CO Scoping Study (Feb. 5, 1981),

https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yxfl0228 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

on carbon dioxide or global warming further. It recommended against expanding those research

areas because Exxon’s current research programs were sufficient for achieving the company’s

goals of closely monitoring federal research, building credibility and public relations value, and

developing in-house expertise regarding CO

and global warming, and noted that Exxon

employees were actively monitoring and keeping the company apprised of outside research

developments, including those on climate modeling and “CO

-induced effects.” In discussing

“options for reducing CO

build-up in the atmosphere,” the study noted that although capturing

from flue gases (i.e., exhaust gas produced by combustion) was technologically possible, the

cost was high, and “energy conservation or shifting to renewable energy sources[] represent the

only options that might make sense.”

58. Thus, by 1981, Exxon and other fossil fuel companies were actively monitoring all

aspects of CO

and global warming research, and Exxon had recognized that a shift away from

fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources would be necessary to avoid a large CO

build-

up in the atmosphere and resultant global warming.

59. An Exxon scientist warned colleagues in a 1981 internal memorandum that “future

developments in global data gathering and analysis, along with advances in climate modeling,

may provide strong evidence for a delayed CO

effect of a truly substantial magnitude,” and that

under certain circumstances it would be “very likely that we will unambiguously recognize the

threat by the year 2000.”

The memo expressed concern about the potential effects of unabated

emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products, saying, “it is distinctly possible that [Exxon

Planning Division’s] scenario will later produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least

for a substantial fraction of the world’s population).”

60. In 1982, another report prepared for API by climate scientists recognized that the

atmospheric CO

concentration had risen significantly compared to the concentration at the

Ibid.

R.W. Cohen memorandum to W. Glass (Aug. 18, 1981), available at

http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1981-exxon-memo-on-possible-emission-

consequences-of-fossil-fuel-consumption.

Ibid.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

beginning of the industrial revolution. It went further, warning that “[s]uch a warming can have

serious consequences for man’s comfort and survival since patterns of aridity and rainfall can

change, the height of the sea level can increase considerably and the world food supply can be

affected.”

Exxon’s own modeling research confirmed this.

In a 1982 internal memorandum,

Exxon’s Corporate Research and Science Laboratories acknowledged a consensus “that a

doubling of atmospheric CO

from its pre-industrial revolution value would result in an average

global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C [5.4 ± 2.7 °F]” as well as “unanimous agreement in the

scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant

changes in the earth’s climate[.]”

61. Also in 1982, Exxon’s Environmental Affairs Manager distributed a primer on

climate change to Exxon management; it was “restricted to Exxon personnel and not [to be]

distributed externally.”

The primer explained the science behind climate change, confirmed

fossil fuel combustion as a primary anthropogenic contributor to global warming, and estimated a

doubling by 2090 with a “Most Probable Temperature Increase” of more than 2° C over the

1979 level, as shown in the figure on the following page.

The report also warned that

“disturbances in the existing global water distribution balance would have dramatic impact on soil

moisture, and in turn, on agriculture,” and that the American Midwest would become much drier.

It further warned of “potentially catastrophic effects that must be considered[.]”

It concluded

American Petroleum Institute, Climate Models and CO

Warming: A Selective Review

and Summary (Mar. 1982) p. 4, available at https://www.climatefiles.com/trade-group/american-

petroleum-institute/api-climate-models-and-co2-warming-a-selective-review-and-summary/ (as

of Sept. 13, 2023).

See Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., memorandum to A.M.

Natkin, Office of Science and Technology, Exxon Corp. (Sept. 2, 1982), available at

https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-exxon-memo-summarizing-climate-modeling-

and-co2-greenhouse-effect-research/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Id. at p. 1.

M.B. Glaser, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., memorandum to R.W. Cohen et al.

re CO

“Greenhouse” Effect (Nov. 12, 1982) p. 1, available at https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-

content/uploads/2015/09/1982-Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf (as of Sept. 13,

2023).

Id. at pp. 1, 7.

Id. at p. 11.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

that “[a]ll biological systems are likely to be affected,” and “the most severe economic effects

could be on agriculture.”

Figure 5: Exxon’s Internal Prediction of Future CO

Increase and Global Warming from 1982

62. The report recommended studying “soil erosion, salinization, or the collapse of

irrigation systems” in order to understand how society might be affected and might respond to

global warming, as well as “[h]ealth effects” and “stress associated with climate related famine or

Id. at p. 14.

Id. at p. 7. The company predicted a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide

concentrations above preindustrial levels by around 2090 (left curve), with a temperature increase

of more than 2° C over the 1979 level (right curve).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

migration[.]”

The report estimated that undertaking “[s]ome adaptive measures” (not all of

them) would cost “a few percent of the gross national product estimated in the middle of the next

century” (gross national product was $25,640 billion in 2022).

To avoid such impacts, the report

discussed a scientific analysis which studied energy alternatives and requirements for introducing

them into widespread use, and which recommended that “vigorous development of non-fossil

energy sources be initiated as soon as possible.”

The primer also noted that the analysis

indicated that other greenhouse gases related to fossil fuel production, such as methane (which is

a more powerful GHG than CO

), “may significantly contribute to a global warming,” and that

concerns over CO

would be reduced if fossil fuel use were decreased due to “high price, scarcity,

[or] unavailability.”

“Mitigation of the ‘greenhouse effect’ would require major reductions in

fossil fuel combustion,” the primer stated.

The primer was widely distributed to Exxon

leadership.

63. In September 1982, the Director of Exxon’s Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences

Laboratory, Roger Cohen, wrote Alvin Natkin of Exxon’s Office of Science and Technology to

summarize Exxon’s internal research on climate modeling.

Cohen reported:

[O]ver the past several years a clear scientific consensus has emerged regarding

the expected climatic effects of increased atmospheric CO2. The consensus is that

a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would

result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5) °C. . . . The temperature

rise is predicted to be distributed nonuniformly over the earth, with above-average

temperature elevations in the polar regions and relatively small increases near the

equator. There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a

temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in

the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.

The time required for doubling of atmospheric CO2 depends on future world

consumption of fossil fuels. Current projections indicate that doubling will occur

sometime in the latter half of the 21

century. The models predict that CO

climate

Id. at p. 14.

Ibid.; See Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Gross National Product (updated Mar. 30,

2023), available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GNPA (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

M.B. Glaser, CO2 “Greenhouse” Effect, supra, p. 18.

Id. at pp. 18, 29.

Id. at p. 2.

Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., memorandum to A.M. Natkin,

Exxon Corp. Office of Science and Technology (Sept. 2, 1982), available at

https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-exxon-memo-summarizing-climate-modeling-

and-co2-greenhouse-effect-research/ (as of Sept. 14, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

changes should be observable well before doubling. It is generally believed that

the first CO

-induced temperature increase will not be observable until around the

year 2000.

Cohen described Exxon’s own climate modeling experiments, reporting that they produced “a

global averaged temperature increase that falls well within the range of the scientific consensus,”

were “consistent with the published predictions of more complex climate models,” and were “also

in agreement with estimates of the global temperature distribution during a certain prehistoric

period when the earth was much warmer than today.” “In summary,” Cohen wrote, “the results of

our research are in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric

on climate.”

64. Throughout the early 1980s, at Exxon’s direction, Exxon climate scientist Henry

Shaw forecasted emissions of CO

from fossil fuel use. Those estimates were incorporated into

Exxon’s twenty-first century energy projections and were distributed among Exxon’s various

divisions. Shaw’s conclusions included an expectation that atmospheric CO

concentrations

would double in 2090 per the Exxon model, with an attendant 2.3–5.6°F average global

temperature increase.

65. During the 1980s, many Defendants formed their own research units focused on

climate modeling. API, including the API CO

Task Force, provided a forum for the Fossil Fuel

Defendants to share their research efforts and corroborate their findings related to anthropogenic

GHG emissions.

66. In 1988, the Shell Greenhouse Effect Working Group issued a confidential internal

report, “The Greenhouse Effect,” which acknowledged global warming’s anthropogenic nature:

“Man-made carbon dioxide, released into and accumulated in the atmosphere, is believed to warm

Banerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How Much It Knew About Climate 35 Years

Ago, Inside Climate News (Dec. 1, 2015), available at

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01122015/documents-exxons-early-co2-position-senior-

executives-engage-and-warming-forecast/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too,

Inside Climate News (Dec. 22, 2015), available at

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-

climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco/ (as of

Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

the earth through the so-called greenhouse effect.” The authors also noted the burning of fossil

fuels as a primary driver of CO

buildup and warned that warming could “create significant

changes in sea level, ocean currents, precipitation patterns, regional temperature and weather.”

They further pointed to the potential for “direct operational consequences” of sea level rise on

“offshore installations, coastal facilities and operations (e.g. platforms, harbors, refineries,

depots).”

67. The Shell report noted that “by the time the global warming becomes detectable it

could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilise the

situation.” The authors mentioned the need to consider policy changes, noting that “the potential

implications for the world are . . . so large that policy options need to be considered much

earlier,” and that research should be “directed more to the analysis of policy and energy options

than to studies of what we will be facing exactly.”

68. In 1991, a researcher for Exxon’s subsidiary Imperial Oil stated to an audience of

engineers that greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels. . . . Nobody disputes

this fact.”

69. The fossil fuel industry was at the forefront of carbon dioxide research for much of

the latter half of the twentieth century. It worked with many of the field’s top researchers to

produce exceptionally sophisticated studies and models. For instance, in the mid-1990s, Shell

began developing and employing scenarios to plan how the company could respond to various

global forces in the future. In one scenario, published in a 1998 internal report, Shell paints an

eerily prescient scene:

In 2010, a series of violent storms causes extensive damage to the eastern coast

of the US. Although it is not clear whether the storms are caused by climate

change, people are not willing to take further chances. The insurance industry

refuses to accept liability, setting off a fierce debate over who is liable: the

Shell Internationale Petroleum, Greenhouse Effect Working Group, The Greenhouse

Effect (May 1988) pp. 1, 27, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090-

Document3.html#document/p9/a411239 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Id. at pp. 1, 6.

Jerving et al., Special Report: What Exxon Knew About Global Warming’s Impact on

the Arctic, L.A. Times (Oct. 10, 2015), available at https://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-adv-

exxon-arctic-20151011-story.html (as of Sept. 14, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

insurance industry, or the government. After all, two successive IPCC reports

since 1995 have reinforced the human connection to climate change . . .

Following the storms, a coalition of environmental NGOs brings a class-

action suit against the US government and fossil-fuel companies on the grounds

of neglecting what scientists (including their own) have been saying for years:

that something must be done. A social reaction to the use of fossil fuels grows,

and individuals become ‘vigilante environmentalists’ in the same way, a

generation earlier, they had become fiercely anti-tobacco. Direct-action

campaigns against companies escalate. Young consumers, especially, demand

action.

70. Fossil fuel companies did not just consider climate change impacts in scenarios; they

also incorporated those impacts in their on-the-ground planning. In the mid-1990s, Exxon, Shell,

and Imperial Oil (Exxon) jointly undertook the Sable Offshore Energy Project in Nova Scotia.

The project’s own Environmental Impact Statement declared, “The impact of a global warming

sea-level rise may be particularly significant in Nova Scotia. The long-term tide gauge records at

a number of locations along the N.S. coast have shown sea level has been rising over the past

century. . . . For the design of coastal and offshore structures, an estimated rise in water level, due

to global warming, of 0.5 m [1.64 feet] may be assumed for the proposed project life (25

years).”

71. Climate change research conducted by Defendants and their industry associations

frequently acknowledged uncertainties in their climate modeling. Those uncertainties, however,

were largely with respect to the magnitude and timing of climate impacts resulting from fossil

fuel consumption, not with respect to whether significant changes would eventually occur.

Defendants’ researchers and the researchers at their industry associations harbored little doubt

that climate change was occurring and that fossil fuel products were, and are, the primary cause.

72. Despite the overwhelming information about the threats to people and the planet

posed by continued unabated use of their fossil fuel products, the Fossil Fuel Defendants failed to

act as they reasonably should have to avoid or mitigate those dire adverse impacts. The Fossil

Fuel Defendants instead undertook affirmative efforts to promote their fossil fuel products as safe

Royal Dutch Shell Group, Group Scenarios 1998–2020 (1998) pp. 115, 118, available at

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4430277-27-1-Compiled.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

ExxonMobil, Sable Project Development Plan, vol. 3, Environmental Impact Statement

(Feb. 1996), pp. 4-77.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

and cast doubt in the public’s mind about the burgeoning scientific consensus on climate change,

as described below. This was an abdication of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ responsibility to

consumers and the public, including the State, to act on their knowledge of the reasonably

foreseeable hazards of unabated production and consumption of their fossil fuel products.

C. Defendants Did Not Disclose Known Harms Associated with the Intended

Use of Fossil Fuel Products, and Instead Affirmatively Concealed Those

Harms by Engaging in a Campaign of Deception to Increase the Use of

Those Products

73. By 1988, Defendants had amassed a compelling body of knowledge about the role of

anthropogenic greenhouse gases, specifically those emitted from the use of fossil fuel products, in

causing climate change and its cascading impacts, including disruptions to the hydrologic cycle,

extreme precipitation, extreme drought, increasing temperatures, and associated consequences for

human communities and the environment.

74. On notice that their products were causing global climate change and dire effects on

the planet, the Fossil Fuel Defendants and API faced the decision whether to take steps to limit

the damage that the use of fossil fuel products was causing and would continue to cause Earth’s

inhabitants, including the people of California. Before or thereafter, Defendants could and

reasonably should have taken any number of steps to mitigate the damage caused by the use of

fossil fuel products. Their own comments reveal an awareness of what steps should have been

taken. Defendants should have warned civil society and California consumers of the dangers

known to Defendants of the unabated use of fossil fuel products, and they could and should have

taken reasonable steps to limit the greenhouse gases emitted by use of fossil fuel products. This

would have allowed policymakers to act sooner and more quickly to limit fossil fuel consumption

and accelerate the transition to non-carbon sources. This work is now underway, but was

wrongfully delayed by Defendants’ deception. Simply put, Defendants should have issued

warnings commensurate with their own understanding of the risks posed by the expected and

intended uses of fossil fuel products.

75. Not only did Defendants fail to issue any warnings, but several key events during the

period between 1988 and 1992 prompted them to change their tactics from general research and

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

internal discussion on climate change to a public campaign aimed at deceiving consumers and the

public, including the inhabitants of California. These key events included the following:

a. In 1988, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientists

confirmed that human activities were actually contributing to global warming. On June 23, 1988,

NASA scientist James Hansen’s presentation of this information to Congress engendered

significant news coverage and publicity for the announcement, including coverage on the front

page of The New York Times.

b. On July 28, 1988, Senator Robert Stafford and four bipartisan co-sponsors

introduced S. 2666, “The Global Environmental Protection Act,” to regulate CO

and other

greenhouse gases. Three more bipartisan bills to significantly reduce CO

pollution were

introduced over the following ten weeks, and in August, U.S. Presidential candidate George H.W.

Bush pledged that his presidency would combat the greenhouse effect with “the White House

effect.”

Political will in the United States to reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions and mitigate

the harms associated with Defendants’ fossil fuel products was gaining momentum.

c. In December 1988, the United Nations formed the IPCC, a scientific panel

dedicated to providing the world’s governments with an objective, scientific analysis of climate

change and its environmental, political, and economic impacts.

d. In 1990, the IPCC published its First Assessment Report on anthropogenic

climate change,

which concluded that (1) “there is a natural greenhouse effect which already

keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be,” and (2) that

emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the

atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane,

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the

greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s

See Frumhoff et al., The Climate Responsibilities of Industrial Carbon Producers

(2015) 132 Climatic Change 157, 161, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1472-5

(as of Sept. 13, 2023).

N.Y. Times Editorial Board, The White House and the Greenhouse, N.Y. Times (May

9, 1989), available at http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/09/opinion/the-white-house-and-the-

greenhouse.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

See IPCC, Reports, available at https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global

warming and further enhance it.

The IPCC reconfirmed those conclusions in a 1992 supplement to the First Assessment Report.

e. The United Nations held the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, a

major, newsworthy gathering of over 170 world governments, of which more than 100 sent their

heads of state. The Summit resulted in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change, an international environmental treaty providing protocols for future negotiations aimed

at “stabiliz[ing] greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent

dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

76. Defendants’ campaign of deception focused on concealing, discrediting, and/or

misrepresenting information that tended to support restricting the use of fossil fuels and

transitioning society to a lower-carbon future, thereby decreasing demand for Fossil Fuel

Defendants’ products. The campaign enabled the Fossil Fuel Defendants to continue their

business practice of exploiting fossil fuel reserves and concurrently externalizing the social and

environmental costs of their fossil fuel products. Those activities ran counter to Defendants’ own

prior recognition that the science of anthropogenic climate change was clear, and that action was

needed to avoid or mitigate dire consequences to the planet and to communities like California’s.

77. The Fossil Fuel Defendants—both on their own and jointly through industry and front

groups such as API and the GCC—funded, conceived, planned, and carried out a sustained and

widespread campaign of denial and disinformation about the existence of climate change and

their products’ contribution to it. The campaign included a long-term pattern of direct

misrepresentations and material omissions, as well as a plan to influence consumers indirectly by

affecting public opinion through the dissemination of misleading information to the press,

government, and academia. Although the Fossil Fuel Defendants were competitors in the

IPCC, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (Houghton et al. edits. 1990)

p. xi, available at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

IPCC, Climate Change: The 1990 and 1992 IPCC Assessments (1992) p. 52, available

at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/climate-change-the-ipcc-1990-and-1992-assessments (as of Sept.

13, 2023).

United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) art.

2, p. 4, available at https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

marketplace, they combined and collaborated with each other and with API on this public

campaign to misdirect and stifle public knowledge in order to increase sales and protect profits.

The effort included promoting hazardous fossil fuel products through advertising campaigns that

failed to warn of the existential risks associated with the use of those products and that were

designed to influence consumers to continue using the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel

products, irrespective of those products’ damage to communities and the environment.

78. For example, in 1988, Joseph Carlson, an Exxon public affairs manager, stated in an

internal memo that Exxon “is providing leadership through API in developing the petroleum

industry position” on “the greenhouse effect.”

He then went on to describe the “Exxon

Position,” which included two important messaging tenets, among others: (1) “[e]mphasize the

uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced Greenhouse effect”; and (2)

“[r]esist the overstatement and sensationalization of potential Greenhouse effect which could lead

to noneconomic development of nonfossil fuel resources.”

79. Reflecting on his time as an Exxon consultant in the 1980s, Professor Martin Hoffert,

a former New York University physicist who researched climate change, expressed regret over

Exxon’s “climate science denial program campaign” in his sworn testimony before Congress:

[O]ur research [at Exxon] was consistent with findings of the United Nations

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on human impacts of fossil fuel

burning, which is that they are increasingly having a perceptible influence on

Earth’s climate. . . . If anything, adverse climate change from elevated CO

proceeding faster than the average of the prior IPCC mild projections and fully

consistent with what we knew back in the early 1980’s at Exxon. . . . I was greatly

distressed by the climate science denial program campaign that Exxon’s front office

launched around the time I stopped working as a consultant—but not collaborator—

for Exxon. The advertisements that Exxon ran in major newspapers raising doubt

about climate change were contradicted by the scientific work we had done and

continue to do. Exxon was publicly promoting views that its own scientists knew

were wrong, and we knew that because we were the major group working on this.

Joseph M. Carlson, memorandum re The Greenhouse Effect (Aug. 3, 1988) p. 7,

available at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3024180/1998-Exxon-Memo-on-the-

Greenhouse-Effect.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Id. at pp. 7-8.

Martin Hoffert, former Exxon consultant and Professor Emeritus of Physics at New

York University, Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth About Climate

Change, Hearing Before the House Comm. on Oversight and Reform, Subcomm. on Civil Rights

and Civil Liberties, 116th Cong., 1st Sess., at pp. 7-8 (Oct. 23, 2019), available at

https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/house-event/110126 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

80. A 1994 Shell report entitled “The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect: A Review of the

Scientific Aspects” by Royal Dutch Shell’s Peter Langcake stands in stark contrast to the

company’s 1988 report on the same topic. Whereas before the authors had recommended

consideration of policy solutions early on, Langcake warned of the potentially dramatic

“economic effects of ill-advised policy measures.” While the report recognized the IPCC

conclusions as the mainstream view, Langcake still emphasized scientific uncertainty, noting, for

example, that “the postulated link between any observed temperature rise and human activities

has to be seen in relation to natural climate variability, which is still largely unpredictable.” The

Shell position is stated clearly in the report: “Scientific uncertainty and the evolution of energy

systems indicate that policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions beyond ‘no regrets’ measures

could be premature, divert resources from more pressing needs and further distort markets.”

81. In 1996, Exxon released a publication called “Global Warming: Who’s Right? Facts

about a debate that’s turned up more questions than answers.” In the publication’s preface, Exxon

CEO Lee Raymond inaccurately stated that “taking drastic action immediately is unnecessary

since many scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand the climate system.” The

publication described the greenhouse effect as “unquestionably real and definitely a good thing,”

while ignoring the severe consequences that would result from the influence of the increased CO

concentration on the Earth’s climate. Instead, it characterized the greenhouse effect as simply

“what makes the earth’s atmosphere livable.” Directly contradicting Exxon’s own internal

knowledge and peer-reviewed science, the publication ascribed the rise in temperature since the

late nineteenth century to “natural fluctuations that occur over long periods of time” rather than to

the anthropogenic emissions that Exxon itself and other scientists had confirmed were

responsible. The publication also falsely challenged the computer models that projected the future

impacts of unabated fossil fuel product consumption, including those developed by Exxon’s own

employees, as having been “proved to be inaccurate.” The publication contradicted the numerous

Langcake, Shell Internationale Petroleum, The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect: A Review

of the Scientific Aspects (Dec. 1994) pp. 1, 9, 14, available at

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411099-Document11.html#document/p15/a411511

(as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

reports prepared by and circulated among Exxon’s staff, and by API, stating that “the indications

are that a warmer world would be far more benign than many imagine . . . moderate warming

would reduce mortality rates in the U.S., so a slightly warmer climate would be more healthful.”

Raymond concluded his preface by attacking advocates for limiting the use of his company’s

fossil fuel products as “drawing on bad science, faulty logic or unrealistic assumptions”—despite

the important role that Exxon’s own scientists had played in compiling those same scientific

underpinnings.

82. API published an extensive report in the same year warning against concern over CO

buildup and any need to curb consumption or regulate the fossil fuel industry. The introduction

stated that “there is no persuasive basis for forcing Americans to dramatically change their

lifestyles to use less oil.” The authors discouraged the further development of certain alternative

energy sources, writing that “government agencies have advocated the increased use of ethanol

and the electric car, without the facts to support the assertion that either is superior to existing

fuels and technologies” and that “[p]olicies that mandate replacing oil with specific alternative

fuel technologies freeze progress at the current level of technology, and reduce the chance that

innovation will develop better solutions.” The paper also denied the human connection to climate

change, by falsely stating that “no conclusive—or even strongly suggestive—scientific evidence

exists that human activities are significantly affecting sea levels, rainfall, surface temperatures or

the intensity and frequency of storms.” The report’s message was false but clear: “facts don’t

support the arguments for restraining oil use.”

83. In a speech presented at the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing in 1997 at which

many of the Defendants were present, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond reiterated those views. This

time, he presented a false dichotomy between stable energy markets and abatement of the

Exxon Corp., Global Warming: Who’s Right? (1996) pp. 3, 5-7, available at

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805542-Exxon-Global-Warming-Whos-Right.html

(as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Gentille et al., American Petroleum Institute, Reinventing Energy: Making the Right

Choices (1996) pp. 2, 11, 63, 79, available at

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4224133-Reinventing-Energy (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

marketing, promotion, and sale of fossil fuel products Defendants knew to be hazardous. He

stated:

[S]ome people . . . argue that we should drastically curtail our use of fossil fuels for

environmental reasons . . . my belief [is] that such proposals are neither prudent nor

practical. With no readily available economic alternatives on the horizon, fossil

fuels will continue to supply most of the world’s and this region’s energy for the

foreseeable future.

. . . .

Governments also need to provide a stable investment climate . . . . They should

avoid the temptation to intervene in energy markets in ways that give advantage to

one competitor over another—or one fuel over another.

. . . .

We also have to keep in mind that most of the greenhouse effect comes from natural

sources . . . . Leaping to radically cut this tiny sliver of the greenhouse pie on the

premise that it will affect climate defies common sense and lacks foundation in our

current understanding of the climate system.

. . . .

[L]et’s agree there’s a lot we really don’t know about how climate will change in

the 21st century and beyond . . . . It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the

middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are

enacted now or 20 years from now. . . . It’s bad public policy to impose very costly

regulations and restrictions when their need has yet to be proven.

84. Imperial Oil (Exxon) CEO Robert Peterson falsely denied the established connection

between the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products and anthropogenic climate change in an

essay in the Summer 1998 issue of Imperial Oil’s magazine, “Imperial Oil Review”:

[T]his issue [referring to climate change] has absolutely nothing to do with

pollution and air quality. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but an essential

ingredient of life on this planet. . . . [T]he question of whether or not the trapping

of “greenhouse” gases will result in the planet’s getting warmer . . . has no

connection whatsoever with our day-to-day weather.

. . . .

There is absolutely no agreement among climatologists on whether or not the planet

is getting warmer or, if it is, on whether the warming is the result of man-made

factors or natural variations in the climate. . . . I feel very safe in saying that the

view that burning fossil fuels will result in global climate change remains an

unproved hypothesis.

Lee R. Raymond, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Exxon Corp., in an address at

the World Petroleum Congress at pp. 4, 8, 9, 11, (Oct. 13, 1997), available at

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2840902/1997-Lee-Raymond-Speech-at-China-

World-Petroleum.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Peterson, A Cleaner Canada, Imperial Oil Review (1998) p. 29, available at

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6555577-1998-Robert-PetersonA-Cleaner-Canada-

Imperial.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

85. Mobil (Exxon) paid for a series of “advertorials,” advertisements located in the

editorial section of The New York Times and meant to look like editorials rather than paid ads.

Many of those advertorials communicated doubt about the reality and severity of human-caused

climate change, even as industry scientists contemporaneously reiterated that climate change was

real, serious, and caused by human activity. The ads addressed various aspects of the public

discussion of climate change and sought to undermine the justifications for tackling GHG

emissions as unsettled science. The 1997 advertorial on the following page argued that economic

analysis of emissions restrictions was faulty and inconclusive and therefore provided a

justification for delaying action on climate change.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

Figure 6: 1997 Mobil Advertorial

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

86. Many other Exxon and Mobil advertorials falsely or misleadingly characterized the

state of climate science research to the readership of The New York Times’s op-ed page. A sample

of misleading or outright untruthful statements in paid advertisements that resembled op-eds

includes the following:

• “We don’t know enough about the factors that affect global warming and the degree

to which—if any—that man-made emissions (namely, carbon dioxide) contribute to

increases in Earth’s temperature.”

• “[G]reenhouse-gas emissions, which have a warming effect, are offset by another

combustion product—particulates—which leads to cooling.”

• “Even after two decades of progress, climatologists are still uncertain how—or even

if—the buildup of man-made greenhouse gases is linked to global warming.”

• “[I]t is impossible for scientists to attribute the recent small surface temperature

increase to human causes.”

87. A quantitative analysis of Exxon’s climate communications between 1989 and 2004

found that, while 83% of the company’s peer-reviewed papers and 80% of its internal documents

acknowledged the reality and human origins of climate change, 81% of its advertorials

communicated doubt about those conclusions.

Based on this “statistically significant”

Mobil, When Facts Don’t Square with the Theory, Throw Out the Facts, in N.Y. Times

(Aug. 14, 1997) p. A31, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705550-mob-

nyt-1997-aug-14-whenfactsdontsquare.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Mobil, Climate Change: A Prudent Approach, in N.Y. Times (Nov. 13, 1997) p. A27,

available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705548-mob-nyt-1997-11-13-

climateprudentapproach.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Mobil, Less Heat, More Light on Climate Change, in N.Y. Times (July 18, 1996) p.

A23, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705544-mob-nyt-1996-jul-18-

lessheatmorelight.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Mobil, Climate Change: Where We Come Out, in N.Y. Times (Nov. 20, 1997) p. A31,

available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705549-mob-nyt-1997-11-20-

ccwherewecomeout.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023) (emphasis in original).

ExxonMobil, Unsettled Science, in N.Y. Times (Mar. 23, 2000), available at

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705605-xom-nyt-2000-3-23-unsettledscience (as of

Sept. 13, 2023).

Supran & Oreskes, Assessing ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications (1977–

2014) (2017) 12(8) Environmental Research Letters, available at

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f/pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

discrepancy between internal and external communications, the authors concluded that

“ExxonMobil misled the public.”

88. The Fossil Fuel Defendants—individually and through API, other trade associations,

and various front groups—mounted a public campaign of deception in order to continue

wrongfully promoting and marketing their fossil fuel products, despite their own knowledge and

the growing national and international scientific consensus about the hazards of doing so.

89. One of the key organizations formed by the Fossil Fuel Defendants to coordinate the

fossil fuel industry’s response to the world’s growing awareness of climate change was the

International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA). In 1988, the

IPIECA formed a “Working Group on Global Climate Change” chaired by Duane LeVine,

Exxon’s manager for science and strategy development. The Working Group also included Brian

Flannery from Exxon, Leonard Bernstein from Mobil, Terry Yosie from API, and representatives

from BP, Shell, and Texaco (Chevron). In 1990, the Working Group sent a strategy memo created

by LeVine to IPIECA member companies. This memo explained that, to forestall a global shift

away from burning fossil fuels for energy, the industry should emphasize uncertainties in climate

science, call for further research, and promote industry friendly policies that would leave the

fossil fuel business intact.

90. The GCC, on behalf of the Fossil Fuel Defendants and other fossil fuel companies,

also funded deceptive advertising campaigns and distributed misleading material to generate

public uncertainty around the climate debate, seeking to prevent U.S. adoption of a 1997

international agreement to limit and reduce GHG emissions known as the Kyoto Protocol and

thereby inflate the market for fossil fuels, despite the leading role that the U.S. had played in

negotiating the Protocol.

The GCC’s position on climate change contradicted decades of its

Ibid.; Supran & Oreskes, Addendum to ‘Assessing ExxonMobil’s Climate Change

Communications (1977–2014) (2020) 15(11) Environmental Research Letters, available at

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f/pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Bonneuil et al., Early Warnings and Emerging Accountability: Total’s Responses to

Global Warming, 1971-2021 (2021) 71 Global Environmental Change, available at

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021001655 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Brulle, Advocating Inaction: A Historical Analysis of the Global Climate Coalition

(2023) 32 Environmental Politics 2, 13-14, available at https://cssn.org/wp-

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

members’ internal scientific reports by asserting that natural trends, not human combustion of

fossil fuels, were responsible for rising global temperatures:

The GCC believes that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that most, if not

all, of the observed warming is part of a natural warming trend which began

approximately 400 years ago. If there is an anthropogenic component to this

observed warming, the GCC believes that it must be very small and must be

superimposed on a much larger natural warming trend.

91. The GCC’s promotion of overt climate change skepticism also contravened its

internal assessment that such theories lacked scientific support. Despite an internal primer

acknowledging that various “contrarian theories” (i.e., climate change skepticism) “do not offer

convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced

climate change,”

the GCC excluded this section from the publicly released version of the

backgrounder,

and instead funded and promoted some of those same contrarian theories.

Between 1989 and 1998, the GCC spent $13 million on advertisements as part of a campaign to

obfuscate the facts and the science relating to climate change and undermine the public’s trust in

climate scientists.

Ultimately, the GCC’s efforts “created an influential discourse of climate

skepticism in the U.S. that continues to be an influential political current.”

content/uploads/2022/04/GCC-Paper.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023) (Brulle notes in particular the

effectiveness of the GCC in opposing the Kyoto protocol: “In one final compliment, the GCC’s

effectiveness was acknowledged in a meeting with White House staff on 21 June 2001. The

talking points for that meeting noted that ‘POTUS rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from

you.’”).

Global Climate Coalition, Global Climate Coalition: An Overview (Nov. 1996) p. 2,

available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5453339-1996-GCC-Overview-and-

Reports (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Gregory J. Dana, Assoc. of Int’l Auto. Mfrs., memorandum to AIAM Technical

Committee, Global Climate Coalition (GCC) re Primer on Climate Change Science - Final Draft

(Jan. 18, 1996) p. 16, available at http://www.webcitation.org/6FyqHawb9 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

See Gregory J. Dana, Assoc. of Int’l Auto. Mfrs., memorandum to AIAM Technical

Committee, Global Climate Coalition (GCC) re Science and Technology Assessment Committee

(STAC) Meeting – February 15, 1996 – Summary (Feb. 27, 1996) p. 7, available at

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5631461-AIAM-050835.html (as of Sept. 13, 2023)

(“Most suggestions [at the STAC meeting] had been to drop the ‘contrarian’ part. This idea was

accepted and that portion of the paper will be dropped.”).

Franz, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Science, Skeptics and Non-

State Actors in the Greenhouse (Sept. 1998) ENRP Discussion Paper E-98-18, p. 13, available at

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/Science%20Skeptics%20and%20Non

-State%20Actors%20in%20the%20Greenhouse%20-%20E-98-18.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Boon, A Climate of Change? The Oil Industry and Decarbonization in Historical

Perspective (2019) 93 Bus. History Rev. 101, 110.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

92. For example, in a 1994 report, the GCC stated that “observations have not yet

confirmed evidence of global warming that can be attributed to human activities,” that “[t]he

claim that serious impacts from climate change have occurred or will occur in the future simply

has not been proven,” so “there is no basis for the design of effective policy actions that would

eliminate the potential for climate change.”

In 1995, the GCC published a booklet called

“Climate Change: Your Passport to the Facts,” which stated, “While many warnings have reached

the popular press about the consequences of a potential man-made warming of the Earth’s

atmosphere during the next 100 years, there remains no scientific evidence that such a dangerous

warming will actually occur.”

93. In 1997, William O’Keefe, chairman of the GCC and executive vice president of API,

made the following false statement in a Washington Post op-ed: “Climate scientists don’t say that

burning oil, gas, and coal is steadily warming the earth.”

100

This statement contradicted the

established scientific consensus as well as Defendants’ own knowledge. Yet Defendants did

nothing to correct the public record, and instead continued to fund the GCC’s anti-scientific

climate skepticism.

94. In addition to publicly spreading false and misleading information about the climate

science consensus, the GCC also sought to undermine credible climate science from within the

IPCC. After becoming a reviewer of IPCC’s Second Assessment Report in 1996, the GCC used

its position to accuse the lead author of a key chapter in the Report of modifying the chapter’s

conclusions. The GCC claimed that the author, climatologist Ben Santer, had engaged in

“scientific cleansing” that “understate[d] uncertainties about climate change causes and

effects . . . to increase the apparent scientific support for attribution of changes to climate to

Global Climate Coalition, Issues and Options: Potential Global Climate Change (1994),

preface & p. 43, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5628164-Potential-

Global-Climate-Change-Issues-and-Options (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Global Climate Coalition, Climate Change: Your Passport to the Facts (1995), available

at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5628109-Climate-Change-Your-Passport-to-the-

Facts (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

100

O’Keefe, A Climate Policy, The Washington Post (July 5, 1997), available at

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/07/05/a-climate-policy/6a11899a-c020-

4d59-a185-b0e7eebf19cc/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

human activities.”

101

The GCC also arranged to spread the accusation among legislators,

reporters, and scientists, and similar accusations were published in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

102

This effort “was widely perceived to be an attempt on the part of the GCC to undermine the

credibility of the IPCC.”

103

95. In the late 1990s, Defendants shifted away from openly denying anthropogenic

warming and toward peddling a subtler form of climate change skepticism. Defendants became

alarmed by the enormous legal judgments the tobacco industry then faced as a result of decades

spent publicly denying the health risks of smoking cigarettes; a Shell employee explained that the

company “didn’t want to fall into the same trap as the tobacco companies who have become

trapped in all their lies.”

104

Defendants began to shift their communications strategy, claiming

they had accepted climate science all along.

105

Several large fossil fuel companies, including BP

and Shell, left the GCC (although all the Fossil Fuel Defendants remained members of API).

106

At this point in time, Defendants publicly claimed to accept the reality of anthropogenic climate

change, while insisting that the costs of climate action were unacceptably high in light of the yet-

unresolved uncertainties in climate science—especially around the severity and timeframe of

future climate impacts. Reflecting this new strategy, API Executive Vice President (and GCC

chairman) William O’Keefe announced in November 1998 that “[w]e are committed to being part

of the solution to the climate risk and to active participation in the debate to forge a clear,

defensible policy.” “[T]he debate is not about action or inaction,” O’Keefe wrote, “but what set of

101

Franz, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Science, Skeptics and

Non-State Actors in the Greenhouse (Sept. 1998) ENRP Discussion Paper E-98-18, p. 14,

available at

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/Science%20Skeptics%20and%20Non

-State%20Actors%20in%20the%20Greenhouse%20-%20E-98-18.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

102

Oreskes & Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the

Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (2011) p. 207. See also Singer, Climate

Change and Consensus, 271 Science no. 5249 (Feb. 2, 1996); Seitz, A Major Deception on

'Global Warming', Wall Street Journal (June 12, 1996), available at

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB834512411338954000 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

103

Franz, Science, Skeptics, and Non-State Actors in the Greenhouse, supra, p. 15.

104

Rich, Losing Earth: A Recent History (2020) p. 186.

105

Bonneuil et al., Early Warnings and Emerging Accountability: Total’s Responses to

Global Warming, 1971-2021 (2021) 71 Global Envtl. Change 6, available at

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021001655 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

106

Ibid.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

actions is consistent with our state of knowledge and economic well-being.”

107

Rather than

publicly deny the need to address climate change, Defendants’ new communications strategy

sought to forestall policy actions that might decrease consumption of fossil fuel products.

96. Despite their public about-face, Defendants surreptitiously continued to organize and

fund programs designed to deceive the public about the weight and veracity of the climate science

consensus. In 1998, API convened a Global Climate Science Communications Team (GCSCT)

whose members included Exxon’s senior environmental lobbyist, an API public relations

representative, and a federal relations representative from Chevron. There were no climate

scientists on the GCSCT. Steve Milloy and his organization, The Advancement of Sound Science

Coalition (TASSC), were founding members of the GCSCT. TASSC was an organization created

by the tobacco industry to give the impression of a “grassroots” movement, which aimed to sow

uncertainty by discrediting the scientific link between exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke

and increased rates of cancer and heart disease. Philip Morris had launched TASSC on the advice

of its public relations firm, which advised Philip Morris that the tobacco company itself would

not be a credible voice on the issue of smoking and public health. TASSC also became a front

group for the fossil fuel industry, using the same tactics it had honed while operating on behalf of

tobacco companies to spread doubt about climate science.

97. The GCSCT continued Defendants’ efforts to deceive the public about the dangers of

fossil fuel use by launching a campaign in 1998 to convince the public that the scientific basis for

climate change was in doubt. The multi-million-dollar, multi-year “Global Climate Science

Communications Action Plan” plan, sought, among other things, to do the following: (a)

“[d]evelop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about

uncertainties in climate science”; (b) “to generate national, regional and local media coverage on

the scientific uncertainties”; (c) “[d]evelop a global climate science information kit for media

including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the ‘conventional wisdom’ on climate science”; (d)

“[p]roduce . . . a steady stream of op-ed columns”; and (e) “[d]evelop and implement a direct

107

API, U.S. Oil Industry Recognizes Climate Change Risk, 28 Oil & Gas Journal (Nov.

1, 1998).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

outreach program to inform and educate members of Congress, state officials, . . . and school

teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science” to “begin to erect a barrier against

further efforts to impose Kyoto [Protocol]-like measures in the future”

108

—a blatant attempt to

disrupt international efforts to negotiate any treaty curbing GHG emissions and to ensure a

continued and unimpeded market for their fossil fuel products.

98. Exxon, Chevron, and API directed and contributed to the development of the plan,

which plainly set forth the criteria by which the contributors would know when their efforts to

manufacture doubt had been successful. “Victory,” they wrote, “will be achieved when . . .

average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science” and “recognition of

uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”

109

In other words, the plan was part of

Defendants’ goal to use disinformation to plant doubt about the reality of climate change in an

effort to maintain consumer demand for their fossil fuel products and their large profits.

99. Soon after, API distributed a memo to its members illuminating API’s and the Fossil

Fuel Defendants’ concern over the potential regulation of their fossil fuel products: “Climate is at

the center of the industry’s business interests. Policies limiting carbon emissions reduce

petroleum product use. That is why it is API’s highest priority issue and defined as ‘strategic.’”

110

The API memo stressed many of the strategies that Defendants collectively utilized to combat the

perception of fossil fuel products as hazardous. These strategies included the following:

a. Influencing the tenor of the climate change “debate” as a means to establish that

greenhouse gas reduction policies like the Kyoto Protocol were not necessary to responsibly

address climate change;

108

Joe Walker, email to Global Climate Science Team re Draft Global Climate Science

Communications Plan (Apr. 3, 1998), available at

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/api-global-climate-science-communications-

plan.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

109

Ibid.

110

Allegations of Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science,

Hearing Before the Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 110th Cong. 324 (Mar. 19,

2007), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg37415/html/CHRG-

110hhrg37415.htm (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

b. Maintaining strong working relationships between government regulators on

the one hand, and communications-oriented organizations and other groups carrying Defendants’

message minimizing the hazards of the unabated use of fossil fuel products and opposing

regulation thereof; and

c. Presenting Defendants’ positions on climate change in domestic and

international forums, including by presenting an “alternative” to the IPCC.

100. In furtherance of the strategies described in these memoranda, Defendants made

misleading statements about climate change, the relationship between climate change and fossil

fuel products, and the urgency of the problem. Defendants made these statements in public fora

and in advertisements published in newspapers and other media with substantial circulation in

California, including national publications such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal,

and The Washington Post.

101. Another key strategy in Defendants’ efforts to discredit the scientific consensus on

climate change as well as the IPCC itself was to fund scientists who held fringe opinions. Those

scientists obtained part or all of their research budget from the Fossil Fuel Defendants, either

directly or through Fossil Fuel Defendant-funded organizations like API,

111

but frequently failed

to disclose their funding sources.

112

At least one such scientist, Dr. Wei-Hock Soon, took the

highly unusual approach of contractually agreeing to allow donors to review his research before

publication, and his housing institution, the Smithsonian Institute, agreed not to disclose the

funding arrangement without prior permission from his fossil fuel donors.

113

Defendants intended

111

E.g., Soon & Baliunas, Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000

Years, (Jan. 31, 2003) 23 Climate Rsch. 88, 105, available at https://www.int-

res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

112

Allman, Climate Change Researcher Received Funds From Fossil Fuel Industry (Feb.

26, 2015) Smithsonian Magazine, available at

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonianmag/smithsonian-climate-change-scientist-

180954380/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

113

Mulvey et al., Union of Concerned Scientists, The Climate Deception Dossiers:

Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Disinformation, Climate Deception

Dossiers #1: Dr. Wei-Hock Soon’s Smithsonian Contracts (July 2015) pp. 6-9, available at

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

(as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

for the research of scientists they funded to be distributed to and relied on by consumers when

buying Fossil Fuel Defendants’ products, including by consumers in California.

102. Creating a false perception of disagreement in the scientific community (despite the

consensus previously acknowledged within the industry) has evidently disrupted vital channels of

communication between scientists and the public. A 2007 Yale University-Gallup poll found that

while 71% of Americans personally believed global warming was happening, only 48% believed

that there was a consensus among the scientific community, and 40% believed, falsely, that there

was substantial disagreement among scientists over whether global warming was occurring.

114

Eight years later, a 2015 Yale-George Mason University poll found that “[o]nly about one in ten

Americans understands that nearly all climate scientists (over 90%) are convinced that human-

caused global warming is happening, and just half . . . believe a majority do.”

115

Further, it found

that 33% of Americans believe that climate change is mostly due to natural changes in the

environment, in stark contrast to the 97% of peer-reviewed climate science papers that

acknowledge that global warming is happening and at least partly human-caused.

116

The lack of

progress, and indeed the regression, in the public’s understanding of climate science over this

period—during which Defendants professed to accept the conclusions of mainstream climate

science—demonstrates the success of Defendants’ deception campaign in thwarting the

dissemination of accurate scientific information to the public regarding the effects of the use of

fossil fuels.

103. Defendants, individually, collectively, and through their trade association

memberships, worked directly, and often in a deliberately obscured manner, to conceal and

misrepresent fossil fuel products’ known dangers from consumers, the public, and the State.

114

American Opinions on Global Warming: A Yale/Gallup/Clearvision Poll, Yale

Program on Climate Change Communication (July 31, 2007), available at

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/american-opinions-on-global-warming/ (as of

Sept. 13, 2023).

115

Leiserowitz et al., Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University, and

Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University, Climate Change in the

American Mind (Oct. 2015), available at https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2015/11/Climate-Change-American-Mind-October-20151.pdf (as of Sept. 13,

2023).

116

Ibid.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

104. Defendants have funded dozens of think tanks, front groups, and “dark money”

foundations—i.e., organizations that raise funds to influence elections while concealing their

contributions to political candidates or causes, and the sources of their contributions—promoting

climate change denial. These organizations include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the

Heartland Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and the

Heritage Foundation. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998 to 2017, Exxon

spent over $36 million funding numerous organizations misrepresenting the scientific

consensus

117

that fossil fuel products were causing climate change, sea level rise, and injuries to

California, among other communities. Several Defendants have been linked to other groups that

undermine the scientific basis linking fossil fuel products to climate change and sea level rise,

including the Frontiers of Freedom Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute.

105. Beginning in 2015, journalists began to uncover mounting evidence of Defendants’

campaign of deception. In September 2015, journalists at Inside Climate News reported that, as

far back as the 1970s, Exxon had had sophisticated knowledge of the causes and consequences of

climate change and of the role its products played in contributing to climate change.

118

106. Between October and December 2015, several journalists at the Energy and

Environment Reporting Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and the

Los Angeles Times also exposed the fact that, as far back as the 1970s, Exxon and other members

of the fossil fuel industry had had superior knowledge of the causes and consequences of climate

change and the role their products played in causing it.

119

117

Union of Concerned Scientists, ExxonMobil Foundation & Corporate Giving to

Climate Change Denier & Obstructionist Organizations (1998-2017), available at

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/ExxonMobil-Worldwide-Giving-1998-

2017.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

118

Banerjee et al., Exxon: The Road Not Taken, Inside Climate News (Sept. 16, 2015),

available at https://insideclimatenews.org/project/exxon-the-road-not-taken/ (as of Sept. 13,

2023).

119

The Los Angeles Times published a series of three articles between October and

December 2015. (See Jennings et al., How Exxon Went From Leader to Skeptic on Climate

Change Research, Los AngelesTimes (Oct. 23, 2015), available at

https://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research (as of Sept. 13, 2023); Jerving et al., What Exxon

Knew About the Earth’s Melting Arctic, Los Angeles Times (Oct. 9, 2015), available at

https://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023); Lieberman & Rust et al., Big Oil

Braced for Global Warming While it Fought Regulations, Los Angeles Times (Dec. 31, 2015),

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

107. In November 2017, the Center for International Environmental Law issued a report

revealing that Defendants, including API, had had superior knowledge of the causes and

consequences of climate change and the role fossil fuel products played in causing it as early as

the 1970s.

120

D. Defendants Could Have Chosen to Facilitate, and Be Part of, a Lower-

Carbon Future, but Instead Chose Corporate Profits and Continued

Deception

108. Defendants could have chosen a different path. They could have refrained from

undermining the global effort to mitigate the impacts of GHG emissions, or contributed to it by,

for example, delineating practical technical strategies, policy goals, and regulatory structures that

would have allowed them to continue their business ventures while reducing GHG emissions and

supporting a transition to a lower-carbon future. Instead, Defendants devoted significant efforts to

deceiving consumers, lawmakers, and the public about the existential hazards of burning fossil

fuels—all with the purpose and effect of perpetuating and inflating usage of fossil fuels and

delaying the advent of alternative energy sources not based on fossil fuels.

109. As a result of Defendants’ tortious, deceptive, and misleading conduct, consumers of

Defendants’ fossil fuel products, the public, and policymakers, in California as elsewhere, have

been deliberately and unnecessarily deceived about the following: the role of fossil fuel products

in causing global warming, sea level rise, disruptions to the hydrologic cycle, more extreme

precipitation, heat waves, droughts, and other consequences of the climate crisis; the acceleration

of global warming since the mid-twentieth century; and the fact that continued increases in fossil

fuel consumption create increasingly severe environmental threats and increasingly significant

economic costs for coastal and other communities in California. Consumers, the public, and

policymakers in California and elsewhere have also been deceived about the depth and breadth of

the state of the scientific evidence on anthropogenic climate change, and, in particular, about the

available at https://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations (as of Sept. 13, 2023)).

120

Muffett & Feit, Smoke and Fumes: The Legal and Evidentiary Basis for Holding Big

Oil Accountable for the Climate Crisis, Center for International Environmental Law (2017),

available at https://www.ciel.org/reports/smoke-and-fumes (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

strength of the scientific consensus regarding the role of fossil fuels in causing both climate

change and a wide range of potentially destructive impacts.

110. Defendants’ deception also significantly delayed the transition to alternative energy

sources that could have prevented some of the worst impacts of climate change in California.

Exxon had long forecasted—and other Defendants were aware—that alternative energy sources

could have penetrated half of a competitive energy market in 50 years if allowed to develop

unimpeded. However, by sowing doubt about the future consequences of unrestricted fossil fuel

consumption, Defendants’ deception campaign successfully forestalled development and

dissemination of alternative fuels, as well as legislation supporting a broad-based transition to

alternative energy sources. This delay led to emission of huge amounts of avoidable greenhouse

gases, thereby ensuring that the damage caused by climate change will be substantially more

severe than if Defendants had acted in a manner commensurate with their internal knowledge of

climate risks.

E. Defendants’ Internal Actions Demonstrate Their Awareness of the Impacts

of Climate Change and Their Intent to Continue to Profit from the

Unabated Use of Fossil Fuel Products

111. In contrast to their public-facing efforts challenging the validity of the scientific

consensus about anthropogenic climate change, the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ acts and omissions

since the 1970s—including taking expensive actions to protect their own investments from the

impacts of climate change—have evinced their clear understanding of the realities of climate

change and its likely consequences. These actions have included making multi-billion-dollar

infrastructure investments for their own operations, including, among others, the following:

raising offshore oil platforms to protect against sea level rise; reinforcing offshore oil platforms to

withstand increased wave strength and storm severity; and developing technology and

infrastructure to extract, store, and transport fossil fuels in a warming Arctic environment.

121

Lieberman & Rust, Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations, Los

Angeles Times (Dec. 31, 2015), available at https://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations (as of

Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

112. For example, oil and gas reserves in the Arctic that were not previously reachable due

to sea ice are becoming increasingly reachable as sea ice thins and melts due to climate change.

122

In 1973, Exxon obtained a patent for a cargo vessel, such as a tank ship, capable of breaking

through sea ice for use in Arctic operations

123

and for an oil tanker

124

designed for Arctic

operations.

113. In 1974, Texaco (Chevron) obtained a patent for a mobile Arctic drilling platform

designed to withstand significant interference from lateral ice masses.

125

114. Shell obtained a patent for an Arctic offshore platform adapted for conducting

operations in the Beaufort Sea in 1984.

126

115. In 1989, Norske Shell, Royal Dutch Shell’s Norwegian subsidiary, altered designs for

a natural gas platform planned for construction in the North Sea to account for anticipated sea

level rise. Those design changes added substantial costs to the project.

127

a. In 1979, Norske Shell was approved by Norwegian oil and gas regulators to

operate a portion of the Troll oil and gas field.

b. In 1986, the Norwegian parliament granted Norske Shell authority to complete

the first development phase of the Troll field gas deposits, and Norske Shell began designing the

“Troll A” gas platform, with the intent to begin operation of the platform in approximately 1995.

122

Henderson & Loe, The Prospects and Challenges for Arctic Oil Development, Oxford

Institute for Energy Studies (Nov. 2014) p. 1, available at

https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/the-prospects-and-challenges-for-arctic-oil-

development/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

123

ExxonMobil Research Engineering Co., Patent US3727571A: Icebreaking cargo vessel

(granted Apr. 17, 1973), available at https://www.google.com/patents/US3727571 (as of Sept. 13,

2023).

124

ExxonMobil Research Engineering Co., Patent US3745960A: Tanker vessel (granted

July 17, 1973), available at https://www.google.com/patents/US3745960 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

125

Texaco Inc., Patent US3793840A: Mobile, arctic drilling and production platform

(granted Feb. 26, 1974), available at https://www.google.com/patents/US3793840 (as of Sept. 13,

2023).

126

Shell Oil Co., Patent US4427320A: Arctic offshore platform (granted Jan. 24, 1984),

available at https://www.google.com/patents/US4427320 (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

127

Greenhouse Effect: Shell Anticipates a Sea Change, N.Y. Times (Dec. 20, 1989),

available at https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/greenhouse-effect-shell-anticipates-a-

sea-change.html; Lieberman & Rust, Big Oil Braced for Global Warming While it Fought

Regulations, L.A. Times (Dec. 31, 2015), available at https://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations

(as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

Based on the very large size of the gas deposits in the Troll field, the Troll A platform was

projected to operate for approximately 70 years.

c. The platform was originally designed to stand approximately 100 feet above sea

level—the height necessary to stay above the waves in a once-in-a-century-strength storm.

d. In 1989, Shell engineers revised their plans to increase the above-water height

of the platform by three to six feet in order to account for higher anticipated average sea levels

and increased storm intensities due to global warming over the platform’s 70-year operational

life.

128

e. Shell projected that the additional three to six feet of above-water construction

would increase the cost of the Troll A platform by tens of millions of dollars.

F. Defendants’ Actions Have Slowed the Development of Alternative Energy

Sources and Exacerbated the Costs of Adapting to and Mitigating the

Adverse Impacts of the Climate Crisis

116. As GHG pollution accumulates in the atmosphere, some of which (namely CO

) does

not dissipate for potentially thousands of years, climate changes and consequent adverse

environmental changes compound, and their frequencies and magnitudes increase. As those

adverse environmental changes compound, and their frequencies and magnitudes increase, so too

do the physical, environmental, economic, and social injuries resulting therefrom.

117. Delayed societal development and adoption of alternative energy sources and related

efforts to curb anthropogenic GHG emissions have therefore increased environmental harms and

increased the magnitude and cost to address harms, including to California, that have already

occurred or are locked in as a result of historical emissions.

118. Therefore, Defendants’ campaign to obscure the science of climate change to protect

and expand the use of fossil fuels greatly increased and continues to increase the injuries suffered

by California and its residents. Had concerted action to reduce GHG emissions begun earlier, the

subsequent impacts of climate change could have been avoided or mitigated.

128

Ibid.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

119. Defendants have been aware for decades that clean energy presents a feasible

alternative to fossil fuels. In 1980, Exxon forecasted that non-fossil fuel energy sources, if

pursued, could penetrate half of a competitive energy market in approximately 50 years.

129

This

internal estimate was based on extensive modeling within the academic community, including

research conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s David Rose, which concluded

that a transition to non-fossil energy could be achieved in around 50 years. Exxon circulated an

internal memo approving of Rose’s conclusions, stating they were “based on reasonable

assumptions.”

130

But instead of pursuing a clean energy transition or warning the public about the

dangers of burning fossil fuels, Defendants chose to deceive consumers to preserve Fossil Fuel

Defendants’ profits and assets. As a result, much time has been lost in which consumers and

policymakers could have done much to mitigate the climate crisis in California.

120. The costs of inaction on anthropogenic climate change and its adverse environmental

effects were not lost on Defendants. In a 1997 speech by John Browne, Group Chief Executive

for BP America, at Stanford University, Browne described Defendants’ and the entire fossil fuel

industry’s responsibility and opportunity to reduce the use of fossil fuel products, reduce global

emissions, and mitigate the harms associated with the use and consumption of such products:

[W]e need to go beyond analysis and to take action. It is a moment for change and

for a rethinking of corporate responsibility.

. . . .

[T]here is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists and

serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a

discernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentration

of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature.

. . . .

We [the fossil fuel industry] have a responsibility to act, and I hope that through

our actions we can contribute to the much wider process which is desirable and

necessary.

129

Shaw & McCall, Exxon Research and Engineering Company’s Technological

Forecast: CO

Greenhouse Effect (Dec. 18, 1980) p. 5, available at

https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1980-exxon-memo-on-the-co2-greenhouse-effect-and-

current-programs-studying-the-issue/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

130

Exxon Research and Engineering Company, Coordination and Planning Division, CO

Greenhouse Effect: A Technical Review (Apr. 1, 1982) pp. 17-18, available at

https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2-

greenhouse-effect/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

BP accepts that responsibility and we’re therefore taking some specific steps.

To control our own emissions.

To fund continuing scientific research.

To take initiatives for joint implementation.

To develop alternative fuels for the long term.

And to contribute to the public policy debate in search of the wider global answers

to the problem.

131

121. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of the foreseeable, measurable, and significant harms

associated with the unrestrained consumption and use of fossil fuel products, in California as

elsewhere, and despite Defendants’ knowledge of technologies and practices that could have

helped to reduce the foreseeable dangers associated with their fossil fuel products, Defendants

continued to promote heavy fossil fuel use, and mounted a campaign to obscure the connection

between fossil fuel products and the climate crisis, thus dramatically adding to the costs of

abatement. (See supra, Section IV.C.) This campaign was intended to, and did, reach and

influence California consumers, along with consumers elsewhere.

122. At all relevant times, Defendants were deeply familiar with opportunities to reduce

the use of fossil fuel products and associated GHG emissions, mitigate the harms associated with

the use and consumption of these products, and promote development of alternative, clean energy

sources. Examples of that recognition date back to the 1960s, and include, but are not limited to,

the following:

a. In 1980, Imperial Oil (Exxon) wrote in its “Review of Environmental

Protection Activities for 1978–79”: “There is no doubt that increases in fossil fuel usage and

decreases in forest cover are aggravating the potential problem of increased CO

in the

atmosphere. Technology exists to remove CO

from stack gases but removal of only 50% of the

would double the cost of power generation.”

132

131

John Browne, Group Executive for BP America, BP Climate Change Speech to

Stanford (May 19, 1997), available at http://www.climatefiles.com/bp/bp-climate-change-speech-

to-stanford (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

132

Imperial Oil Ltd., Review of Environmental Protection Activities for 1978–1979 (Aug.

6, 1980) p. 2, available at https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1980-imperial-oil-review-of-

environmental-protection-activities-for-1978-1979/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

b. A 1987 company briefing produced by Shell on “Synthetic Fuels and

Renewable Energy” emphasized the importance of immediate research and development of

alternative fuel sources, noting that “the task of replacing oil resources is likely to become

increasingly difficult and expensive and there will be a growing need to develop clean,

convenient alternatives. . . . New energy sources take decades to make a major global

contribution. Sustained commitment is therefore needed during the remainder of this century to

ensure that new technologies and those currently at a relatively early stage of development are

available to meet energy needs in the next century.”

133

c. A 1989 article in a publication from Exxon Corporate Research for company

use only stated: “CO

emissions contribute about half the forcing leading to a potential

enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect. Since energy generation from fossil fuels dominates

modern CO

emissions, strategies to limit CO

growth focus near term on energy efficiency and

long term on developing alternative energy sources. Practiced at a level to significantly reduce the

growth of greenhouse gases, these actions would have substantial impact on society and our

industry—near-term from reduced demand for current products, long term from transition to

entirely new energy systems.”

134

123. Despite these repeated recognitions of opportunities to reduce emissions and mitigate

corresponding harms from climate change, Defendants continued to sow doubt and

disinformation in the minds of the public regarding the causes and effects of climate change, and

methods of reducing emissions. Examples of those efforts include, but are not limited to, the

following:

a. In 1996, more than 30 years after API’s president told petroleum industry

leaders that carbon emissions from fossil fuels could “cause marked changes in climate” by the

133

Shell Briefing Service, Synthetic Fuels and Renewable Energy, Shell Service Briefing,

No. 2 (1987), available at https://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1987-shell-synthetic-fuels-

renewable-energy-briefing/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

134

Flannery, Greenhouse Science, Connections: Corporate Research, Exxon Research and

Engineering Company (Fall 1989), available at https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1989-

exxon-mobil-article-technologys-place-marketing-mix/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

year 2000 if not abated,

135

API published the book Reinventing Energy: Making the Right

Choices to refute this very conclusion. Contradicting the scientific consensus of which its

members had been aware for decades, the book claims: “Currently, no conclusive—or even

strongly suggestive—scientific evidence exists that human activities are significantly affecting

sea levels, rainfall, surface temperatures, or the intensity and frequency of storms.”

136

The book

also suggested that even if some warming does occur, such warming “would present few if any

problems” because, for example, farmers could be “smart enough to change their crop plans” and

low-lying areas would “likely adapt” to sea level rise.

137

b. In the publication, API also contended that “[t]he state of the environment does

not justify the call for the radical lifestyle changes Americans would have to make to substantially

reduce the use of oil and other fossil fuels” and that the “benefits of alternatives aren’t worth the

cost of forcing their use.” “Some jobs definitely will be created in making, distributing and selling

alternatives. But they will come at the expense of lost jobs in the traditional automobile and

petroleum industries,” the authors continued. “[A]lternatives will likely be more expensive than

conventional fuel/vehicle technology. Consumers, obviously, will bear these increased expenses,

which means they will have less to spend on other products. This in turn will . . . cost jobs.”

138

c. API published this book to ensure its members could continue to produce and

sell fossil fuels in massive quantities that it knew would devastate the planet. The book’s final

section reveals this purpose. API concluded: “[S]evere reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by

the United States, or even all developed countries, would impose large costs on those countries

but yield little in the way of benefits—even under drastic climate change scenarios.”

139

124. The Fossil Fuel Defendants could have made major inroads towards mitigating the

harms they caused, and in particular, the State’s injuries, by developing and employing

135

Ikard, Meeting the Challenges of 1966, in Proceedings of the American Petroleum

Institute (1965) p. 13, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5348130-1965-

API-Proceedings (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

136

American Petroleum Institute, Reinventing Energy: Making the Right Choices (1996)

p. 79 (emphasis in original), available at https://www.climatefiles.com/trade-group/american-

petroleum-institute/1996-reinventing-energy/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

137

Id. at pp. 85-87.

138

Id. at pp. 59, 68, 69.

139

Id. at p. 89.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

technologies to capture and sequester GHG emissions associated with conventional use of their

fossil fuel products. The Fossil Fuel Defendants had knowledge of these technologies dating back

at least to the 1960s, and, had indeed, internally researched many such technologies.

125. Even if the Fossil Fuel Defendants did not adopt technological or energy source

alternatives that would have reduced the use of fossil fuel products, reduced global GHG

pollution, and/or mitigated the harms associated with the use and consumption of such products,

the Fossil Fuel Defendants could have taken other practical, cost-effective steps to mitigate the

harms caused by their fossil fuel products. Those alternatives could have included, among other

measures, the following:

a. Refraining from affirmative efforts, whether directly, through coalitions, or

through front groups, to distort public debate, manipulate public perception and the public policy

agenda, and cause many consumers, business, and political leaders to think the relevant science is

far less certain than it actually is;

b. Acknowledging the validity of scientific evidence on anthropogenic climate

change and the damages it will cause people, communities (including the State), and the

environment. Disseminating that evidence would have changed the public policy agenda from

determining whether to combat climate change to deciding how to combat it; avoided much of the

public confusion that has ensued since at least 1988; and contributed to an earlier and quicker

transition to cleaner energy sources in California that could help minimize catastrophic climatic

consequences;

c. Forthrightly communicating with consumers, the public, regulators,

shareholders, banks, insurers, and the State, and warning them about the global warming hazards

of fossil fuel products that were known to Defendants, which would have enabled those groups to

make informed decisions about whether to curb the use of these products—including whether and

to what extent to invest in alternative clean energy sources instead of in fossil fuels;

d. Sharing their internal scientific research with consumers, lawmakers, and the

public, as well as with other scientists and business leaders, to increase public understanding of

the scientific underpinnings of climate change and its relation to fossil fuel products;

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

e. Supporting and encouraging policies to avert catastrophic climate change, and

demonstrating corporate leadership in addressing the challenges of transitioning to a low-carbon

economy; and

f. Prioritizing development of alternative sources of energy through sustained

investment and research on renewable energy sources to replace dependence on hazardous fossil

fuel products.

126. Despite their knowledge of the foreseeable harms associated with the consumption of

fossil fuel products, and despite the existence of, and the fossil fuel industry’s knowledge of,

opportunities to reduce the foreseeable dangers associated with those products, Defendants

wrongfully promoted and concealed the hazards of using fossil fuel products, delaying

meaningful development of alternative energy sources and exacerbating the costs of adapting to

and mitigating the adverse impacts of the climate crisis, including the climate crisis in California.

G. Defendants Continue to Deceive California Consumers Through

Misleading Advertisements That Portray Defendants as Climate-Friendly

Energy Companies and Obscure Their Role in Causing Climate Change

127. Defendants’ deceptive conduct continues to the present day, albeit through updated

messaging. Now, rather than engaging in outright denials of the existence of climate change,

Defendants deflect attention from their role in causing climate change by falsely portraying fossil

fuel products as environmentally friendly, climate-friendly, or otherwise less environmentally

damaging than those products really are.

128. Defendants have continued to mislead the public about the impact of fossil fuel

products on climate change through “greenwashing.” Through recent advertising campaigns and

public statements in California and/or intended to reach California, including but not limited to

online advertisements and social media posts, Defendants falsely and misleadingly portray these

products as “green,” and the Fossil Fuel Defendants portray themselves as climate-friendly

energy companies that are deeply engaged in finding solutions to climate change. In reality,

Fossil Fuel Defendants continue to primarily invest in, develop, promote, and profit from fossil

fuel products and heavily market those products to consumers, with full knowledge that those

products will continue to exacerbate climate change harms.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

129. Defendants’ greenwashing exploits California consumers’ concerns about climate

change and their desire to purchase “green” products and spend their consumer dollars on

products and businesses that are taking substantial and effective measures to combat climate

change. Defendants’ false advertisements are likely to mislead California consumers by giving

the impression that in purchasing the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products, consumers are

supporting genuine, substantial, and effective measures to mitigate climate change through these

companies’ alleged investments in clean energy. Defendants’ greenwashing ultimately attempts to

persuade California consumers to support Defendants’ purported attempts to contribute to climate

change solutions by purchasing and consuming these products, including the Fossil Fuel

Defendants’ fossil fuel products.

130. Below are representative examples of Defendants’ greenwashing campaigns.

1. Defendants’ Affirmative Promotion of Fossil Fuel Products as

“Green,” “Clean,” or Otherwise Good for the Environment Is Likely

to Mislead California Consumers About How Use of Those Fossil

Fuel Products Leads to Climate Change

131. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants have attempted to deceive

consumers by promoting certain of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products as

environmentally beneficial, when in fact Defendants knew that those products would continue to

contribute to climate change, and thus imperil the environment, if used as intended. These

products, which Defendants tout as “green,” “clean” and/or “cleaner,” and/or “environmentally

friendly,”

in fact result in the increase of GHG emissions, despite Defendants’ knowledge that,

when used as designed and intended, these products lead to climate change.

132. Defendants have made these advertisements with the intention of capitalizing on

California consumers’ concern over environmental degradation. Because of a growing collective

realization of past environmental damage and increasingly severe current and anticipated future

climate change harms, consumers more often seek to buy products that they believe will not

contribute to further injury to the environment. By advertising fossil fuel products as

environmentally friendly, and with words, phrases, colors, and imagery that evoke positive

environmental attributes, Defendants seek to convince consumers that fossil fuel products are

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

beneficial to the environment. Reasonable consumers—i.e., a significant portion of the general

consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances—are

likely to be misled by Defendants’ advertisements into believing that these products do not

contribute to substantial injury to the environment. However, these supposedly environmentally

friendly fossil fuel products, through increased GHG emissions, contribute to the sweeping

environmental degradation caused by climate change—just as other fossil fuel products do. By

promoting fossil fuel products as environmentally beneficial, Defendants exploit concerned

consumers’ goodwill and mislead them into purchasing products that they believe will be part of

the solution, even though Defendants are aware that these products only exacerbate the problem.

133. Defendants’ marketing of fossil fuel products as environmentally beneficial follows

in the footsteps of the tobacco industry’s advertising campaigns to de-emphasize, and confuse the

public about, the deadly effects of smoking cigarettes. Just as tobacco companies promoted “low-

tar” and “light” cigarettes, inducing consumers to think of them as healthy alternatives to quitting

smoking, while knowing that smoking “healthy” cigarettes was still harmful to human health, so

too do Defendants peddle “low-carbon” and “emissions-reducing” fossil fuel products to persuade

consumers that those products are climate-friendly alternatives to traditional fossil fuels. In

reality, the fossil fuel products they describe as “low-carbon,” “clean” and/or “cleaner,” “green,”

and “emissions-reducing” in fact contribute to climate change and are harmful to the health of the

planet and its people.

134. Below are representative examples of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ advertisements to

California consumers that misleadingly portray fossil fuels as environmentally beneficial or

benign and fail to mention the products’ role in causing environmentally injurious climate

change. The emphasis on lower emissions, “cleaning” terminology, and positive environmental

imagery and messaging—individually and together—in Defendants’ advertisements are likely to

mislead reasonable consumers by suggesting that Defendants’ fuels are environmentally

beneficial or benign when they contribute to climate change like any other fossil fuel product.

The examples are representative of Defendants’ other advertisements and public statements in

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

Defendants’ greater greenwashing strategy to confuse consumers about the consequences of using

fossil fuel products and consequently to increase demand for those fossil fuel products.

a. Since at least 2016, Exxon has offered for sale and marketed its Synergy fossil

fuels, including, since at least 2020, at a substantial number of Exxon-branded gas stations in

California. In Exxon’s advertisements for its Synergy fuels, including those on or near the gas

pumps at Exxon-branded gas stations in California, Exxon makes several claims that a reasonable

consumer would understand to mean that the Synergy fuels are beneficial or benign, and not

harmful, to the environment. For example, Exxon consistently promotes Synergy fuels as “clean”

or “cleaner,” and the company’s climate strategy mentions its Synergy fuel, claiming it can help

reduce GHG emissions. Exxon also cites Synergy’s alleged reduction of CO

emissions in

Exxon’s advertisement of the company’s improved environmental performance. An

advertisement on Exxon’s website, which is reproduced on the following page, includes an image

featuring a bright sunrise in a clear sky over hills of green grass, green trees, and little to no

industrial or urban development.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

Figure 7: ExxonMobil Fuels “Environmental Performance” website

b. In addition to its Synergy fuels, Exxon offers for sale, and has marketed, Mobil

1™ ESP x2 motor oil to California consumers. From 2016 through at least 2022, Exxon promoted

Mobil 1™ ESP x2 on the website Energy Factor—effectively a corporate blog for Exxon, in

which Exxon claims to discuss developing safe and reliable energy sources for the future—in a

post titled, “Green motor oil? ExxonMobil scientists deliver an unexpected solution.” According

to its advertisement of Mobil 1™ ESP x2, Exxon specially formulated the green oil to “contribute

to [] carbon-emission reduction efforts.” Exxon’s advertising suggests to the consumer that

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

purchase and use of this motor oil conveys an environmental benefit, when in fact the opposite is

true.

c. Shell also offers for sale and markets in California gasoline and oil products.

Shell describes its products as “cleaning” and that their use “produces fewer emissions.” Shell’s

repeated claim that its products are clean, and its frequent use of green and environmentally

positive imagery in its marketing materials, individually and together, are likely to mislead

reasonable consumers into believing that Shell’s fuels are environmentally beneficial or benign,

when in fact they are fossil fuels which, when used as designed and intended, contribute to

climate change.

d. Similarly, Chevron’s gasoline offered for sale and marketed in California,

Chevron with Techron, is marketed as having “cleaning power” that minimizes emissions.

Chevron’s repeated emphasis on “cleaning” terminology, its focus in its marketing materials on

“advancing a lower carbon future,” and its express solicitation of consumers who “care for the

environment,” are likely to mislead reasonable consumers by suggesting that Chevron’s fuels are

environmentally beneficial or benign, when they are not.

e. ConocoPhillips, through its 76-branded gas stations in California, offers for sale

and markets its 76-brand fossil fuels. In ConocoPhillips’s advertisements for its 76-brand fuels,

including advertisements on or near the pumps at 76-branded gas stations in California,

ConocoPhillips claims that its fuels “clean” a car’s engine, resulting in “lower emissions, and that

deposits left from other gasolines “can increase emissions.” ConocoPhillips advertises that 76’s

fossil fuels are “better for the environment.” The 76 website for 76’s fuels contains the marketing

materials shown below, in which ConocoPhillips makes the claim—superimposed on an image of

a bluebird standing on a car’s side mirror and looking at the viewer, with silhouetted trees in the

background—that 76 and its fossil fuels align with the values of environmentally conscious

consumers: “We’re on the driver’s side®. And the environment’s.”

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

Figure 8: ConocoPhillips 76 Fuels Website: Top Tier Gas

135. The Fossil Fuel Defendants also collectively promote their petroleum and natural gas

products through Defendant API, which makes public statements and claims about oil and natural

gas. These include advertisements and promotional campaign websites that have been directed at

and/or reached California, which reasonable consumers would understand to mean that the Fossil

Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuels are beneficial or benign, not harmful, to the environment. In

particular, API’s marketing material falsely promotes the narrative that natural gas is an

environmentally friendly fuel.

136. In several advertisements in The Washington Post—e.g., “Why natural gas will thrive

in the age of renewables,” “Real climate solutions won’t happen without natural gas and oil,”

“Low- and no-carbon future starts with natural gas”—API has misleadingly touted natural gas as

“part of the solution” to climate change. API claims natural gas is “clean.” API also promotes

natural gas’s purported benefits through a campaign titled “Energy for a Cleaner Environment.”

As part of this campaign, API has offered on its website, in social media posts, and in other

advertisements that have reached Californians, the image on the following page, of lush greenery

and a message that “88% of Americans favor energy companies helping meet environmental

challenges.” API elaborates within the advertisement that “natural gas and oil [] powers and

supports modern living . . . with lower emissions.”

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

Figure 9: API, We Are America’s Generation Energy

137. API further claims, falsely, that, “[n]atural gas is an economical, environmentally

friendly complement to renewable energy. The sooner green activists realize that, the more

effective they’ll be at continuing to slash emissions.” API’s misleading messaging regarding the

alleged environmental benefits of natural gas, coupled with its positive environmental imagery

and messaging, is likely to mislead reasonable consumers by suggesting that fossil fuels, in

particular natural gas, are environmentally beneficial and not harmful to the climate. In reality,

the majority of natural gas is derived from fossil fuels, and its primary constituent is methane, a

potent greenhouse gas which plays a significant role in accelerating climate change. Methane has

a relatively short lifespan, but its “global warming potential” is approximately 28 times greater

than an equivalent weight of carbon dioxide over a 100-year time period, and approximately 84

times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. Accounting for methane leaks,

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

flaring, and venting in production and supply chains, the net GHG emissions of natural gas are on

par with—and sometimes higher than—the GHG emissions from coal combustion. Moreover,

combustion of methane for use as a fuel emits carbon dioxide. Methane is the second largest

component of GHG emissions in California, behind carbon dioxide.

2. Defendants’ Affirmative Claims That They Contribute Substantially

to Climate Change Solutions Are Likely to Mislead California

Consumers

138. Recognizing a shift in consumer knowledge and understanding of climate change,

Defendants have changed tactics from seeking to deceive the public about the science and reality

of climate change to deceptively portraying themselves as part of the solution to climate change.

The Fossil Fuel Defendants tout their climate-friendly investments in “clean” fuels and renewable

energy, when in fact those investments are nonexistent or miniscule in comparison to the Fossil

Fuel Defendants’ investments in developing and expanding their fossil fuel production. In many

cases, those “clean” fuels themselves contribute substantially to climate change. Defendants also

market themselves as being in alignment with international goals to reduce GHG emissions, while

instead working to grow the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel businesses. Thus, Defendants’

efforts to mislead the public about climate change have not stopped. Defendants have simply

shifted gears to engage in a different form of deceptive conduct. In doing so, their marketing

seeks to mislead California consumers into believing another lie: that Defendants have made and

are making substantial contributions to solving climate change.

139. By deceptively portraying themselves and their products as part of the climate

solution, rather than as the problem, Defendants’ advertisements induce consumers to purchase

fossil fuel products and develop brand affinity under the misimpression that purchasing and using

fossil fuels will somehow contribute to a “greener” energy future rather than contributing to

climate change.

140. In reality, the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ expansion of their fossil fuel businesses and

insubstantial investments in non-GHG-emitting technology belie Defendants’ purported

commitments to solving climate change. The following are but a few examples of Defendants’

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

attempts to falsely portray themselves as being aligned with solutions to the climate crisis, rather

than continuing to be the problem.

141. Exxon has announced its ambition to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2050, and

touts its commitment to helping society reach a lower-emissions future. Exxon has heavily

promoted its investment in developing algae for use as a biofuel to reduce emissions and combat

climate change. Exxon’s advertising tells consumers that Exxon is working to decrease its carbon

footprint and that its research is leading toward “A Greener Energy Future. Literally.”

142. Exxon’s investment in potential renewable fuels, such as biofuels, has been miniscule

compared to its overall profits and to its investments in developing and expanding its fossil fuels

business. One analysis comparing Exxon’s advertised goal of producing 10,000 barrels of

biofuels per day by 2025 to Exxon’s fossil fuel refinery operations found that the goal for biofuel

production would amount to only 0.2% of Exxon’s refinery capacity, as reported in 2019—in

essence, a rounding error. Also, Exxon’s advertisements touting the development of biofuels from

plant waste substantially overplayed the likely environmental benefits by failing to acknowledge

the intensive energy required to process that plant waste, which would create substantial

additional GHG emissions.

143. As of late 2022, Exxon quietly abandoned its investments in developing algae as a

biofuel, but Exxon continues to invest in its development of fossil fuels, as it has done for

decades.

144. Shell also falsely portrays itself to consumers as part of the climate solution. Shell

claims that it aims to become a net-zero emissions

140

energy business by 2050, and that it is

“tackling climate change.” However, in June 2023, Shell announced that it would no longer

reduce annual oil and gas production through the end of the decade as previously announced,

after selling off oil-producing assets and claiming the reduction in its own production as a

reduction in emissions. Shell’s CEO told the BBC that cutting oil and gas production would be

“dangerous and irresponsible.” Moreover, in advertisements in The New York Times and The

140

“Net-zero” means achieving a balance between the carbon emitted into the atmosphere,

and the carbon removed from it.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

Washington Post, Shell touts its investments in “lower-carbon transport fuels,” including natural

gas. In “The Mobility Quandary,” under a “Finding Sustainable Solutions” banner, Shell singles

out natural gas as “a critical component of a sustainable energy mix” and a “cleaner-burning

fossil fuel.” In “The Making of Sustainable Mobility,” Shell describes natural gas as “a cleaner

fossil fuel” with a “lighter carbon footprint.” Shell’s advertising fails to acknowledge, however,

that development and use of natural gas produces potent GHGs, like methane, that contribute to

climate change, and is far from a “clean” or “sustainable” energy source, let alone a solution to

climate change. As discussed above, natural gas is a significant contributor to climate change:

methane from natural gas is a GHG that exacerbates climate change, and methane emissions

associated with natural gas exploration, development, and use are 28 to 84 times as powerful as

at trapping heat in the atmosphere.

145. Moreover, Shell’s investments in clean energy pale in comparison with its

investments in fossil fuel production. In the first half of 2023, Shell reported $11.6 billion in total

spending, of which less than $1 billion went to renewables and “energy solutions”—a category

that also includes fossil fuel investments such as marketing and trading of pipeline gas. In 2018,

speaking at the Oil and Money conference in the U.K., Shell’s CEO, after acknowledging the

challenge of climate change and referring to recent headlines about Shell’s investments in the

clean energy industry, such as acquiring the renewable electricity company First Utility, said,

“even headlines that are true can be misleading. They might even make people think we have

gone soft on the future of oil and gas. If they did think that, they would be wrong.” Leaving no

doubt about Shell’s plans regarding clean, renewable energy, or lack thereof, he stated that

“Shell’s core business is, and will be for the foreseeable future, very much in oil and gas.”

146. Using a remarkably similar playbook, Chevron claims that it “is committed to

addressing climate change” and touts its intentions to invest billions of dollars in carbon reduction

projects, as well as its net-zero “aspirations.” And Chevron’s director states in a 2021 report, “We

believe the future of energy will be lower carbon, and we intend to be a leader in that future.” Its

CEO claims that Chevron’s “work to create fuels of the future—like hydrogen, renewable diesel,

and sustainable aviation fuel—seeks to lower the carbon intensity of these products and support

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

our customers’ efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.” Chevron representatives have

even delivered public seminars at top educational institutions, deceptively claiming Chevron uses

its “unique capabilities, assets and expertise to deliver progress” toward the global ambition of

achieving net-zero carbon emissions.

147. Chevron’s minimal efforts in the area of renewable and lower-carbon energy, coupled

with its expansion of its fossil fuel business, belie its statements suggesting that it is part of the

climate change solution. Chevron in fact sold its only renewable energy holding in 2018.

Moreover, from 2010 to 2018, according to one analysis, Chevron’s investments in low-carbon

energy sources were only 0.2% of Chevron’s capital spending, compared to 99.8% in continuing

its fossil fuel exploration and development. Chevron to this day continues to prioritize capital

expenditures in its traditional fossil fuel business over its investments in renewable and low-

carbon energy.

148. ConocoPhillips claims, similarly, that its “actions for our oil and gas operations are

aligned with the aims of the Paris Agreement” and touts its actions and achievements toward the

net-zero energy transition. But these claims are contradicted by the company’s substantial

investments in expanding its fossil fuel production and sales. For example, the company’s new

Willow Project in Alaska is expected to produce approximately 576 million barrels of oil, with

associated indirect GHG emissions equivalent to 239 million tons of CO

149. BP also has misleadingly portrayed itself, and continues to misleadingly portray

itself, as a climate leader, claiming that it aims to be a net-zero company by 2050 or sooner and to

help the world get there too. Further, BP emphasized in its “Possibilities Everywhere” campaign,

which it ended in 2020, the company’s investments in renewable energy, such as solar and wind

energy, and “cleaner” energy like natural gas. In its “Blade Runner” advertisement, BP claims

that it is “one of the major wind energy businesses in the US.” In these advertisements, BP failed

to mention that its investments in clean energy resources have been relatively meager. From 2010

to 2018, according to one analysis, BP only devoted 2.3% of its capital expenditures to clean

energy development. BP also failed to mention that in 2019, at the time of its “Blade Runner”

advertisement, BP only owned about 1% of the installed wind capacity in the U.S. Moreover, at a

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

time of record-breaking profits, BP is scaling back its plan to lower emissions by 2030, and BP

continues to make significant investments in fossil fuel production, refining, and sales.

150. API is also no stranger to misleading the public into believing that its and its

members’ actions are part of the solution, rather than the source of the problem. API markets

itself as being an environmental steward, committed to helping reduce GHG emissions. API’s

2021 Climate Action Framework portrays the organization as a partner in moving towards a

climate solution, stating: “Our industry is essential to supplying energy that makes life modern,

healthier and better while doing so in ways that tackle the climate challenge: lowering emissions,

increasing efficiency, advancing technological innovation, building modern infrastructure and

more.” Tellingly, however, API’s strategy does not advocate for or even mention reduction in

fossil fuel production as a strategy to protect the climate. Rather, it focuses on potential technical

advances and shifting to heavier reliance on natural gas as a “clean fuel.” And an internal API

email shows that its Climate Action Framework was in fact organized around the purpose of “the

continued promotion of natural gas in a carbon constrained economy.” As discussed above,

natural gas is far from a “clean” fuel, as API misleadingly claims, as natural gas production and

use contributes substantially to climate change through the release of methane, an extremely

potent greenhouse gas.

H. Defendants’ Concealments and Misrepresentations Regarding the Dangers

of Fossil Fuel Products Encouraged Continued Use of Fossil Fuels and

Discouraged Concerted Action on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

151. As a result of Defendants’ efforts to deny and undermine climate science and conceal

the dangers of fossil fuel consumption, Defendants encouraged consumers to continue to use

fossil fuels and discouraged policymakers from imposing regulations limiting the use of fossil

fuels.

152. As a result of Defendants’ sustained and widespread campaign of disinformation,

many California consumers have been unaware of the strength of the scientific consensus about

the relationship between consumption of fossil fuels and climate change, the magnitude of the

threat posed by their own use of fossil fuels, or of the contribution their purchasing behavior

makes to aggravating the effects of climate change.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

153. By misleading California consumers about the climate impacts of using fossil fuel

products, and by failing to disclose the climate risks associated with their purchase and use of

those products, Defendants deprived consumers of information about the consequences of their

purchasing decisions. This led to consumers using more fossil fuels, and using fossil fuels less

efficiently, than they otherwise would have done in the absence of Defendants’ deception.

154. As with cigarettes, history demonstrates that when consumers are made aware of the

harmful effects or qualities of the products they purchase, they often choose to stop purchasing

them, to reduce their purchases, or to make different purchasing decisions. This phenomenon

holds especially true when products have been shown to harm public health or the environment.

For example, increased consumer awareness of the role of plastics in harming human health and

the environment has spurred a growing market for plastic-free products and packaging. With

access to information about health and environmental impacts, consumers have demanded

healthier choices, and the market has responded.

155. A consumer who received accurate information that fossil fuel use was a primary

driver of climate change, and about the resultant dangers to the environment and to public health,

might have decreased the consumer’s use of fossil fuel products and/or demanded lower-carbon

transportation options from policymakers. Indeed, recent studies and surveys have found that

consumers with substantial awareness of climate change are largely willing “to change their

consumption habits . . . to help reduce the impacts of climate change.”

141

If consumers were

aware of what the Defendants knew about climate change when the Defendants knew it,

consumers might have opted to avoid or minimize airplane travel; avoid or combine car travel

trips; carpool; switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles, hybrid vehicles, or electric vehicles; demand

more charging infrastructure for electric vehicles; use a car-sharing service; seek transportation

alternatives all or some of the time, if and when available (e.g., public transportation, biking, or

walking); or adopt any combination of these choices. In addition, informed consumers often

141

The Conference Board, Changes in Consumers’ Habits Related to Climate Change

May Require New Marketing and Business Models (Oct. 26, 2022), available at

https://www.conference-board.org/topics/consumers-attitudes-sustainability/changes-in-

consumer-habits-related-to-climate-change (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

attempt to contribute toward solving environmental problems by supporting companies that they

perceive to be developing “green” or more environmentally friendly products.

142

156. As described herein, by casting doubt upon the scientific consensus on climate

change, Defendants deceived consumers about the relationship between consumption of fossil

fuels and climate change, and the magnitude of the threat posed by fossil fuel use. Consumers

equipped with complete and accurate knowledge about the climate and the public health effects of

continued consumption of fossil fuels would have likely formed a receptive customer base for

clean energy alternatives decades before such demand in fact developed. Instead, Defendants’

campaign of deception allowed them to exploit public uncertainty to reap substantial profits.

157. As described herein, Defendants’ campaign of deception was also aimed at

discouraging policymakers and lawmakers from taking action on climate change. By

downplaying the scientific consensus on climate change and emphasizing uncertainty, Defendants

hoped to delay any regulatory action that might seek to reduce or control GHG emissions, thereby

threatening the industry’s profits.

143

158. By sowing doubt in the minds of consumers, the media, policymakers, and the public

about the magnitude and the urgency of climate threats, Defendants delayed regulatory action on

GHG emissions, exacerbating the climate crisis and causing significant harm to California and its

residents.

I. The Effects of Defendants’ Deceit Are Ongoing

159. The consequences of Defendants’ tortious misconduct—in the form of

misrepresentations, omissions, and deceit—began decades ago, and continue to be felt to this day.

As described above, Defendants, directly and/or through membership in other organizations,

142

See, e.g., Leiserwitz et al., Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale

University, and Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University,

Consumer Activism on Global Warming, September 2021 (2021), available at

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/consumer-activism-on-

global-warming-september-2021.pdf (as of Sept. 14, 2023). About a third of American consumers

surveyed report “reward[ing] companies that are taking steps to reduce global warming by buying

their products” and “punish[ing] companies that are opposing steps to reduce global warming by

not buying their products” (id. at p. 3).

143

See, e.g., supra, ¶¶ 51, 97.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

misrepresented their own activities, the fact that their products cause climate change, and the

danger presented by climate change.

160. Defendants’ collective goal was to ensure that “[a] majority of the American public,

including industry leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist in climate science,

and therefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on

global climate change.”

144

In 2023, only 20% of Americans understand how strong the level of

consensus is among scientists that human-caused global warming is happening, and 28% think

climate change is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment.

145

161. Defendants’ misrepresentations, omissions, and deceit had a significant and long-

lasting effect on how the public views climate change and the dangers of fossil fuel use that

continues to the present day. By sowing doubt in the minds of the public, Defendants

substantially altered the public discourse on climate change, and intentionally delayed action on

climate change.

162. If Defendants had been forthcoming about their own climate research and

understanding of the dangers of fossil fuel products, consumers, policymakers, and the public

could have made substantial progress in transitioning to a lower-carbon economy, at a much

earlier time, potentially averting some of the effects of the climate crisis that California is

experiencing today.

163. Moreover, by concealing the very fact of their campaign of deception, including by

using front groups to obscure their own involvement in the deception, Defendants concealed their

unlawful conduct from the public and the State, thereby preventing the State from discovering the

facts underlying the claims alleged herein.

144

Joe Walker, email to Global Climate Science Team re Draft Global Climate Science

Communications Plan (Apr. 3, 1998), available at

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/api-global-climate-science-communications-

plan.pdf (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

145

Leiserowitz et al., Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University, and

Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University, Climate Change in the

American Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes, Spring 2023 (2023) pp. 3, 8, available at

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-

beliefs-attitudes-spring-2023/ (as of Sept. 13, 2023).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

164. Due to Defendants’ deceptive and misleading conduct, California is in the throes of a

climate crisis—one that would have been avoidable in part had Defendants acted differently.

J. The State Has Suffered, Is Suffering, and Will Suffer Injuries from

Defendants’ Wrongful Conduct

165. Defendants’ individual and collective conduct is a substantial factor in causing harms

to California. This conduct includes, but is not limited to, their wrongful promotion of fossil fuel

products, their concealment of the known hazards associated with the use of those products, and

their public deception campaigns designed to obscure the connection between these products and

climate change and its public health, environmental, physical, social, and economic

consequences. Such consequences include, but are not limited to, the following: extreme heat;

drought; wildfires; increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including coastal

and inland storms and associated flooding; habitat loss and species impacts; sea level rise and

attendant flooding, erosion, damage to riparian lands and submerged lands, and loss of wetlands

and beaches; ocean warming and acidification; and the cascading social, economic, health, and

other consequences of these environmental changes. These adverse impacts will continue to

increase in frequency and severity in California and disproportionately impact frontline

communities.

166. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, which was a substantial

factor in bringing about the aforementioned environmental changes, the State has suffered and

will continue to suffer severe harms and losses. These include, but are not limited to, the

following: increased costs associated with public health impacts, environmental impacts, and

economic impacts; injury or destruction of state-owned or -operated facilities and property

deemed critical for operations, utility services, and risk management, as well as other assets that

are essential to community health, safety, and well-being; increased costs for responding to

increasingly frequent natural disasters and increasingly intense weather events, including extreme

heat, drought, wildfires, coastal and inland storms and associated flooding, and extreme

precipitation events; and increased planning and preparation costs for community adaptation and

resilience to climate change’s effects.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

167. The State has incurred, and will foreseeably continue to incur, as a result of

Defendants’ deceptive conduct as described in this Complaint, injuries due to delays in taking

action to mitigate or curtail the climate crisis. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct,

California has experienced, is experiencing, and will continue to experience significant adverse

impacts, including, but not limited to, those described below.

1. Extreme Heat

168. California is being impacted and will continue to be impacted in years and decades to

come by higher average temperatures and more frequent and severe heat waves. The last nine

years have been the nine hottest on record, and that trend is only expected to continue. These

changes will pose a risk to every region of the state. Severe harms from rising temperatures are

already a reality in many frontline communities. Members of frontline communities tend to work

in occupations with increased exposure to extreme heat, such as the agricultural, construction, and

delivery industries.

169. Globally, increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases in the

atmosphere are causing a continuing increase in the planet’s average temperature. California

temperatures have risen since records began in 1895, and the rate of increase is accelerating.

Figure 10: Statewide Annual Average Temperatures

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

170. Death Valley recorded the world’s highest reliably measured temperature (130° F) in

July 2021, breaking its own record (129° F) set in summer 2020. Meanwhile, the City of Fresno

also broke one of its own records in 2021, with 64 days over 100° F that year. This is part of a

trend: the daily maximum average temperature, an indicator of extreme temperature shifts, is

expected to rise by 4.4° F to 5.8° F by 2050 and by 5.6° F to 8.8° F by 2100. Heat waves that

result in public health impacts are also projected to worsen throughout California. By 2050, these

heat-related health events are projected to last two weeks longer in the Central Valley and occur

four to ten times more often in the Northern Sierra region.

Figure 11: Projected California Temperature Increases

146

RCP in this graph refers to Representative Concentration Pathways, which are

projections based on the emissions scenarios used by the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. There

are four RCPs (2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5), and each RCP represents a family of possible underlying

socioeconomic conditions, policy options, and technological considerations, from a low-end

scenario (RCP 2.6) that requires significant emissions reductions to a high-end, “business-as-

usual,” fossil fuel-intensive emission scenario (RCP 8.5).

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

171. Recent heat waves have broken heat records and caused serious illness across the

state, and these events are becoming more frequent. Heat waves have a particularly high impact in

Southern California, where they have become more intense and longer-lasting. In the past two

years, Los Angeles recorded 121° F, and the Coachella Valley had its hottest year ever, with

temperatures reaching 123° F. In urbanized environments, pavement, cement, and other non-

vegetated areas contribute to the “heat island” effect, in which built environments retain heat,

causing daytime temperatures to be 1° to 6° F hotter than rural areas and nighttime temperatures

to be as much as 22° F hotter. The heat island effect is inequitably distributed, and

disproportionately affects frontline communities. Heat events exacerbate respiratory and cardiac

illness and cause emergency room visits to soar. Young children, the elderly, people with

preexisting health conditions, and African Americans are more vulnerable than the rest of the

population to extreme heat events.

172. Heat ranks among the deadliest of all climate hazards in California, and heat waves in

cities are projected to cause two to three times more heat-related deaths by mid-century. Frontline

communities will experience the worst of these effects, as heat risk is associated and correlated

with physical, social, political, and economic factors.

173. Heat events also lead to increased poultry and livestock mortality, which can lead to

potentially adverse impacts to public health, animal health, and the environment, and resultant

economic losses. Hotter weather can deteriorate the integrity of containment systems at toxic

waste sites.

174. Extreme heat also threatens California’s natural systems. Increasing temperatures, for

example, lead to exacerbated risk of wildfire; drought and its effects on the health of watersheds;

and negative effects on plants and animals, including reduced fitness, increased stress, decreased

reproduction, migration, death, and in some cases extinction. These shifts result in significant

cultural impacts to tribes, where plants and animals that have been used as traditional food,

medicine, materials, or in ceremonies are no longer available.

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

2. Drought and Water Shortages

175. Anthropogenic warming has increased the likelihood, frequency, and duration of

extreme droughts in California.

176. Over the last three years, the State has earmarked more than $8 billion to modernize

water infrastructure and management, as part of planning for a potential loss of 10% of its water

supplies by 2040 due to climate change.

177. California’s five-year drought of 2012 to 2016 occurred in a setting of then-record

statewide warmth and set numerous hydrologic and impact records, including lowest statewide

snowpack, groundwater levels in many parts of California falling below previous historical lows,

and severe resultant land subsidence. This event was soon followed by the 2020-2023 drought,

which again set new hydrologic records.

178. Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains serves as a vital water storage and supply

system for California, supplying roughly 30% of the state’s water needs in an average year.

Warmer winter temperatures caused by climate change are reducing the fraction of precipitation

falling as snow, and increased evaporation is reducing snowpack volume. Recent projections

show that the Sierra snowpack could decline to less than two-thirds of its historical average by

2050, even if precipitation remains relatively stable.

179. Warmer temperatures in the spring and summer cause the snowpack to melt earlier

and more quickly. This rapid melting can result in flooding, and can reduce California’s supplies

of water stored in reservoirs.

180. Warmer average temperatures across California will increase moisture loss from

soils, which leads to drier summers even if winter precipitation increases. Climate projections

show that the seasonal summer dryness in California may start earlier in the spring due to earlier

soil drying, and last longer into the fall and winter.

181. Droughts have significant environmental, social, and economic repercussions in

California, and their impacts are widespread. The 2012-2016 and 2020-2022 droughts impacted

most of California and required statewide responses. Future climate-exacerbated droughts are

expected to harm the State and its people by, among other things, causing drinking water

100

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

shortages, damaging the State’s agricultural industry, depleting groundwater, devastating aquatic

ecosystems, increasing the intensity and severity of wildfires, reducing the availability of

hydroelectricity, and harming human health.

182. Drinking water shortages primarily affect small drinking water systems and domestic

wells, which are often found in rural communities. In 2015, more than 100 small water systems

experienced water shortages, and more than 2,000 domestic wells went dry. These vulnerable

systems are located throughout California, and approximately half serve frontline communities. In

the 2012-2016 drought, some rural frontline communities in the San Joaquin Valley relied on

bottled water, interim tanks, and filling buckets and barrels with water from neighboring

communities. From July 2021 to August 2023, the State spent over $100 million providing

emergency bottled and hauled water to communities experiencing drinking water shortages.

183. California is the top agriculture-producing state in the nation, accounting for more

than 60% of the country’s production of vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruit and nut

crops. The state’s agricultural industry accounts for 40% of total water use in an average year.

Drought conditions can result in crop losses and decreased agriculture production, and future

water shortages are expected to limit agricultural suitability for various crops. The resulting

economic damages will be substantial—in 2016 alone, the impacts of drought on California’s

agriculture industry resulted in over $600 million in direct economic damages and the loss of

4,700 jobs.

184. Reliance on groundwater increases during droughts, when surface water storage is

depleted due to reduced precipitation and low snowpack. Overdraft of groundwater may cause

land subsidence, which can impact infrastructure—including water conveyance systems, roads,

railways, bridges—aquifer storage capacity, and land topography. Increased groundwater

pumping during drought also worsens groundwater quality, causing increased contamination of

drinking water supplies. Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which was passed

in 2014, the State has spent more than $300 million to fund Groundwater Sustainability Agencies

to manage groundwater resources at the local level.

101

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

185. Drought harms aquatic ecosystems by causing low water flows, which, among other

things, negatively impact water quality by affecting factors like temperature and salinity and

increasing the concentration of pollutants in water. As many as 18 California native fish species

would have been at high risk of extinction if the 2012-2016 drought had continued. Drought has

contributed to a precipitous decline in Chinook salmon populations in California and led to an

economically devastating shutdown of California’s salmon fishery in 2023. Drought also reduces

water availability for California’s managed wetlands, harming millions of migratory birds that

rely on those wetlands by reducing food and habitat availability.

186. Dry conditions produced by droughts can lead to more intense and severe wildfires. A

2016 study found that climate-induced warming and drying have created a favorable environment

for fires, doubling the area burned by forest fires over the area expected to burn from natural

climate variability alone from 1984 to 2015. Several of the largest, most destructive, and deadliest

wildfires in state history followed the 2012-2016 drought. The second largest in the State’s

history, the Dixie Fire, occurred during the 2021 drought year. For additional discussion of

wildfire harms, see Section IV.J.3, infra.

187. Drought can also affect human health by increasing harmful algal blooms, altering

patterns of certain vector-borne diseases, increasing the risk of water-borne diseases, and

increasing air pollution from wildfires and dust storms.

188. The State has borne and will continue to bear the substantial costs associated with

mitigating and responding to climate-exacerbated drought impacts.

3. Extreme Wildfire

189. Climate change has caused and will continue to cause an accelerated increase in the

risk, occurrence, and intensity of wildfires in California, resulting in wildfire-related injuries to

the State and its residents.

190. Wildfire has always been an essential element of California’s ecology; however,

climate change is leading to disruptions in the state’s natural temperature and precipitation

patterns that have helped maintain the healthy, balanced role of wildfire in California. The result

is a wildfire crisis. Increasingly higher temperatures coupled with longer and more intense

102

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

droughts have led to substantially drier vegetation and fuel loads across the state that are more

easily ignitable during periods of hotter conditions, which are becoming more frequent and more

intense in California under climate change. The wildfire season is beginning earlier in the year

and ending later, and the footprint of wildfire in California has expanded due to climate change.

More than 23 million acres of California wildlands, extended over half the state, are classified as

under very high risk of fire, the highest fire hazard severity level. As demonstrated in the figures

below, in 2023 compared to in 2007, more areas are at risk of fire, with increased severity of that

risk in many areas.

Figure 12: Fire Hazards Severity Zones, 2007 (adopted) and 2023 (proposed)

Similarly, summer forest burned area during 1996 to 2021 showed a fivefold increase compared

to the years 1971 to 1995, and one recent study found that nearly all of the increase in burned area

is due to anthropogenic climate change.

103

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

191. The evidence is unequivocal that both the severity and intensity of wildfires in

California are increasing as a result of climate change. Most of the largest and most destructive

fires in California’s history have occurred since 2000, as illustrated by the following chart:

Figure 13: Largest and Most Destructive Wildfires in California

Nine of the 20 largest fires ever in California occurred in 2020 and 2021, after some of the driest

and hottest years on record. California saw its largest wildfire season in 2020, when over 4.3

million acres burned (over 4% of the land within California, an area larger than the State of

Rhode Island). In that season California also suffered its first gigafire, the August Complex Fire,

which burned over a million acres through seven counties. The Camp Fire in 2018 burned fiercely

and spread so rapidly that it destroyed the town of Paradise, California, in the fire’s first four

hours. The fire was the most destructive and costliest ever in the world, resulting in nearly 19,000

structures destroyed and over $16 billion in property damage. The fire was also the deadliest in

California’s history, with 85 civilian fatalities.

192. Related climate change impacts drive the increased risk, occurrence, and intensity of

wildfire in California by impairing the health of forests and vegetation and creating conditions

primed for megafires. Episodes of ever-more extreme drought are parching landscapes across

California. Higher temperatures and diminishing quantities of available water create increasingly

inhospitable conditions for trees at lower elevations and in hotter, drier southern regions.

104

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

Consequently, new forest trees gravitate northward and upslope, leaving stressed and dying trees

behind. Dead trees are more flammable than live trees, furthering California’s wildfire risk. More

frequent climate change-induced extreme weather events, such as extended periods of dry, hot,

high winds and dry lightning storms, combine with the dangerous conditions on the ground not

only to create more wildfires in California but also to fan their flames. In 2020, during one of

California’s worst periods of drought, a severe dry lightning storm followed by dry high winds

passed through Central and Northern California and sparked hundreds of wildfires. These fires

were so intense, expansive, and numerous that they became known as the 2020 Fire Siege. This

was a perfect storm of conditions, driven by climate change, creating catastrophic fires.

193. These catastrophic, climate change-driven wildfires result in substantial losses to the

State’s financial resources. While the State only owns about 3% (approximately one million

acres) of the forestlands within California’s boundaries, the State is financially responsible for

wildfire protection for about 40% (over 31 million acres) of California’s wildlands

(approximately 79 million acres), which include forestland, watershed, and rangeland. The State

spends billions of dollars on wildfire response annually; however, the cost of fighting more

extreme climate change-driven wildfires is increasing. The State budgets for its response to large

wildfires in the form of an emergency fund, which is funded each year based in part on the

average costs of large wildfires over the previous five years. For the 2020-2021 fiscal year, the

State budgeted $373 million for the emergency fund, but spent over $1.3 billion from the

emergency fund during the 2020 Fire Siege. In 2011, the State spent only about $90 million on

emergency fire suppression, but has not spent as little since.

105

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

Figure 14: State Spending on CAL FIRE

194. Once suppressed, climate change-driven wildfires leave shattered communities in

their wake, resulting in further financial loss to the State for wildfire recovery efforts. Increased

wildfire smoke blankets these communities with ash that contains hazardous chemicals, such as

the metals lead, cadmium, nickel, and arsenic; asbestos from older homes or other buildings;

perfluorochemicals; flame retardants; caustic materials; and other debris, all of which must be

removed before communities can rebuild. In addition to wildfire response, the State incurs further

costs for wildfire recovery, including removal of household hazardous waste and wildfire debris

in areas impacted by wildfire.

195. In addition to suppression and disaster response and recovery costs incurred by the

State, the total property loss from recent fire seasons has also climbed to several billions of

dollars per year.

196. Further, the State has lost precious natural resources to catastrophic, climate change-

driven wildfires. During the 2020 Fire Siege, for example, the CZU Lightning Complex Fire

effectively destroyed the State’s oldest state park, Big Basin Redwoods State Park, and the

surrounding forest of primarily coastal redwoods. The park lost all of its historic structures, and

the awe-inspiring landscape of towering old- and second-growth coastal redwoods was razed.

While old-growth redwoods are known for fire resilience, and while many survived and are

106

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

currently recovering, it is also becoming clear that changing climatic conditions such as hotter,

drier summers and prolonged extreme drought will play a significant role in how the forest of Big

Basin Redwoods State Park declines or recovers in the decades to come. The vast majority of the

park remains closed indefinitely as it recovers from the damage.

197. Substantial natural resource costs from wildfire also extend beyond the forests.

Destruction from wildfires deteriorates watersheds, which stresses municipal water supplies and

treatment operations. Some smoke plumes from these megafires are so immense and hot that they

form pyrocumulus clouds that create their own hazardous weather, such as lightning, hail, and

tornadoes. These gigantic billows of smoke travel thousands of miles at both high and low

elevations, severely compromising air quality and harming public health.

198. With the health of forests impaired and conditions worsening as the climate warms,

the State has incurred costs and will incur further costs to manage forestlands to prevent future

catastrophic, climate change-driven wildfires. Recently, the State has devoted $2.7 billion over

three years to address wildfire resiliency in California.

4. Public Health Injuries

199. Climate change has caused and will continue to cause significant public health-related

injuries to the State and its residents.

200. Heat causes more reported deaths per year on average in the United States than any

other weather hazard. Greater numbers of extreme heat events in California will result in

increased risk of heat-related illnesses (from mild heat stress to fatal heat stroke). Certain groups

are more vulnerable to heat exposure. These include the elderly, young children, people with pre-

existing health conditions (such as heart or lung disease), and African Americans.

147

Workers

who engage in vigorous physical activity, especially outdoors, are also at risk, including workers

in construction, firefighting, and agriculture. Farmworkers die of heat-related causes at 20 times

the rate of the rest of the U.S. civilian workforce. Since 2005, the first year California began

tracking the number of heat-related fatalities, 36% of California’s heat-related worker deaths have

147

Heat deaths or illness are underreported or misclassified. Hence, the available data on

heat-related illnesses and deaths likely underestimate the full health impact of exposure to periods

of high temperatures.

107

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

been of farmworkers. Similarly, although construction workers comprise only 6% of the national

workforce, they account for 36% of heat-related deaths.

201. The rate of occupational heat-related deaths in California slightly exceeds the national

average. In 2006, dramatic increases in many heat-related illnesses and deaths were reported

following a record-breaking heat wave. Over 16,000 excess emergency room visits, over 1,100

excess hospitalizations, and at least 140 deaths occurred between July 15 and August 1, 2006.

Projections for California estimate about a 10- to 20-fold increase in the number of extremely hot

days by the mid-21st century, and about a 20- to 30-fold increase by the end of the century.

202. Californians already experience the worst air quality in the nation. Hotter

temperatures lead to more smog, which can damage lungs, and increase childhood asthma,

respiratory and heart disease, and death. Air quality is expected to deteriorate due to rising

temperatures, as ground-level ozone and particulate matter concentrations rise. Ozone and

particulate matter are associated with a wide range of harmful health effects in humans, including

cardiovascular disease, cancer, and asthma.

203. The smoke from climate change-driven wildfires has also compromised and will

further compromise California’s air quality. Smoke from these fires has reached everywhere in

California, clogging the skies, eclipsing the sun, and suffocating Californians’ air. Wildfire smoke

is a complex mixture of toxic gases, fine particulate matter, and other pollutants. Most of the state

has experienced large increases in wildfire-driven air pollution when comparing air quality data

from 2002-2013 with those from 2014-2020. During the 2020 Fire Siege, all of California was

covered by wildfire smoke for over 45 days—and 36 counties for at least 90 days. Altogether,

more than half of California’s population experienced approximately one month characterized by

unhealthy, very unhealthy, or hazardous levels of wildfire smoke during the 2020 fire season. The

five highest average daily air pollution readings ever recorded in California occurred in 2020.

204. The decline in air quality from wildfire smoke has had pernicious impacts on the

State’s public health. Exposure to wildfire smoke has been linked to respiratory infections,

cardiac arrests, low birth weight, mental health conditions, and exacerbated asthma and chronic

obstructive pulmonary disease. Sensitive groups, such as children, pregnant people, and the

108

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

elderly; those with underlying health conditions; and those whose occupations require working

outdoors with greater exposure to wildfire smoke, such as agricultural workers, suffer an even

greater risk of harmful health effects from wildfire smoke. Researchers from Stanford University

estimated California wildfire smoke likely led to at least 1,200 and as many as 3,000 excess

California deaths between August 1 and September 10, 2020 alone.

205. Heavy precipitation, sea level rise, and extreme weather events will lead to more

frequent flooding, which causes death and injury in addition to secondary health risks such as

damage to sanitation infrastructure, aggravation of chronic diseases, and contamination of

drinking water, land, and property which jeopardizes human health and the State economy. As

one example, the alternating cycle of heavy precipitation and heat attributed to climate change

provides an ideal condition for fungal Valley Fever outbreaks. Sea level rise and increased

flooding are also expected to lead to increased risk of contamination and chemical exposure due

to flooding of toxic sites. These risks are particularly acute for California because 68.5% of the

state’s population lives in the coastal areas. As pest seasons and ranges expand, vector-and tick-

borne illnesses will increase in California’s population. The State has borne, and will continue to

bear, costs associated with mitigating and responding to these public health threats.

5. Extreme Storms and Flooding

206. Much of California’s winter precipitation arrives in the form of “atmospheric river”

storms, which are fed by long streams of water vapor transported from the Pacific Ocean. These

storms deliver extreme precipitation when their moisture-laden winds encounter California’s

coastal mountain ranges.

207. Atmospheric rivers and the heavy precipitation they bring are the major cause of

historical floods in California, resulting significant damage to property and public infrastructure

and substantial economic losses.

208. Studies uniformly show that atmospheric rivers are likely to become more frequent

and more intense in the future, in part because warmer air allows atmospheric rivers to hold more

moisture. In a warmer future climate, total precipitation in atmospheric river events is projected to

109

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

increase by about 25% on average throughout the state, and maximum hourly precipitation rates

may increase by 30%.

209. With the increased likelihood of extreme storms comes an increased risk of

catastrophic flooding. Because warming temperatures will cause a lower proportion of winter

storms to fall as snow, the predicted 25% increase in total precipitation from atmospheric river

events will result in 50% more runoff, posing significant flood risks. Additionally, higher hourly

precipitation rates will result in short-duration bursts of intense precipitation, which pose a

significant risk of flash flooding and related hazards, such as mudslides.

210. One recent study analyzed the likelihood that California would experience a

“megaflood” in the future—a historically rare flood caused by 30 consecutive days of

precipitation. Researchers found that the annual likelihood of a megaflood increases rapidly for

each 1° C of global warming, and that warming as of 2022 has already doubled the annual

likelihood of a megaflood. By 2060, megafloods—which historically occurred approximately

once every two hundred years—may occur three times per century.

211. The State’s water infrastructure consists of dams, reservoirs, aqueducts, canals,

spillways, levees, and pumping plants designed to store and transport water and reduce flood risk.

Much of this infrastructure was designed to operate within historical ranges of precipitation and

temperatures, not the more frequent and intense storms that the State will face in the warming

future. The flood improvement investments needed in the Central Valley alone are expected to

cost the State between $1.8 and $2.8 billion through 2027. In the winter of 2022 to 2023,

California experienced a series of severe atmospheric river storms that broke precipitation records

throughout the state, with some areas of the state receiving more than 200% of average

precipitation. These storms had devastating effects throughout California. More than 80 state park

properties were fully or partially closed due to storm impacts. In March 2023, the Pajaro River

breached a levee on the border of Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, triggering evacuation orders

and warnings for more than 8,500 people, and leaving residents of the unincorporated community

of Pajaro without safe drinking water for the next month. In the Central Valley, Tulare Lake—

110

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

which was drained to support agriculture in the early 1900s and has been largely dry since—

reappeared, flooding 168 square miles, and grew in size as the Sierra snowpack melted.

212. Floods can cause emergency conditions such as power, water, and gas outages;

disrupt transportation routes and commercial supplies; damage homes, buildings, and roads; and

cause severe environmental problems, including landslides and mudslides, which require

response and recovery efforts by the State. Household, industrial, agricultural, and other wastes

can contaminate floodwaters, creating chemical and biological public health risks to impacted

communities. Flooding from storms often leads to increased sanitary sewer overflows. Drinking

water supplies are often inundated with sewage and other contaminants from flood waters

resulting in water use restrictions, including Boil Water Notices and Do Not Drink Orders,

limiting or eliminating drinking water for communities. Burn scars from wildfires increase the

risk of debris flows during episodes of increased precipitation. Locations downhill and

downstream from burned areas are susceptible to flash flooding and debris flows, especially near

steep terrain. Rainfall that would normally be absorbed will run off extremely quickly after a

wildfire. As a result, after a wildfire, much less rainfall is required to produce a flash flood. The

force of the rushing water and debris can damage or destroy culverts, bridges, roadways, and

buildings even miles away from the burned area.

213. In addition, extreme precipitation events can cause inundation of toxic waste sites,

leading containment systems and structures not designed for extreme weather events to fail and

release contamination.

214. The State has borne, and will continue to bear, the costs of constructing, maintaining,

and upgrading water infrastructure, including flood management infrastructure, and otherwise

responding to the damage caused by extreme storms and flooding.

6. Damage to Agriculture

215. California is a global leader in the agricultural sector and produces more than 400

types of commodities. The state produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds

of its fruits and nuts. California is the largest and most diverse agricultural state in the United

States.

111

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

216. While California farmers and ranchers have always been affected by the natural

variability of weather from year to year, the increased rate and scale of climate change is beyond

the realm of experience for the agricultural community.

217. Agricultural production in California is highly sensitive to climate change. Changes

in temperatures and in the amounts, forms, and distribution of precipitation, increased frequency

and intensity of climate extremes, and water availability are a few examples of climate-related

challenges to California’s agriculture sector. Irrigated agriculture produces nearly 90% of the

harvested crops in California, and a decrease in water availability could reduce crop areas and

yields. Drought can adversely affect agricultural crop production by slowing plant growth and

causing severe crop yield losses. Lower stream flow and groundwater levels as a consequence of

drought can harm plants by increasing the risk of wildfires when vegetation and soil surface dry

out. Warmer environments can cause greater runoff caused by faster snowmelt. This, in turn,

causes reservoirs to fill up earlier, increasing the odds of both winter flooding and summer water

deficits. Increasing temperatures result in more flooding events, which greatly affect plant

survival through a reduction in oxygen availability, root asphyxia, and an increase in disease and

nitrogen losses.

218. Changes in California’s climate are negatively influencing California’s highly

productive agricultural industry. Impacts on agriculture include low chill hour accumulations,

crop yield declines, increased pest and disease pressure, increased crop water demands, altered

phenology of annual and perennial cropping systems, and uncertain future sustainability of some

highly vulnerable crops.

219. Permanent crops are among the most profitable commodities in California. They are

most commonly grown for more than 25 years, which makes them more vulnerable to impacts of

climate change. Most of the permanent crops in California require several years to reach maturity

and profitable production. California has already observed a significant loss of winter chill hours,

due to an increase in average winter temperatures. Winter chill hours are defined as the number of

hours spent below 45° F, necessary for the flowers of fruits and nuts to bloom, and required by

certain crops to achieve high yields. According to University of California researchers, around the

112

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

year 1950, growers in the Central Valley could rely on having between 700 and 1,200 chill hours

annually. For chilling requirements of 500 hours (chestnut, pecan, and quince), only about 78% of

the Central Valley will be suitable for production by the end of the 21st century. For chilling

requirements of more than 700 hours (apricot, kiwifruit, peach, nectarine, plum, and walnut), only

23–46% of the valley remains suitable, and only 10% will remain suitable by 2080–2095. Only

4% of the area of the Central Valley was suitable in the year 2000 for species such as apples,

cherries, and pears, which have annual chilling requirements of more than 1,000 hours; however,

virtually no areas in California will remain suitable by 2041–2060 under any emissions scenario

for these types of fruit crops.

Figure 15: California Central Valley Winter Chill Hours in 1950, 2000,

2041–2060, and 2080–2099

220. Increases in invasive pests, changes to plant and pest interactions, and increases in

plant and animal diseases in agriculture are some additional potential impacts from climate

change. University of California researchers have indicated that due to climate change, by 2050,

113

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

yields are projected to decline by 40% for avocados and 20% for almonds, table grapes, oranges,

and walnuts. In 2021, drought resulted in the fallowing of nearly 400,000 acres of fields. Direct

crop revenue losses were approximately $962 million, and total economic impacts were more

than $1.7 billion, with over 14,000 full- and part-time job losses. During the 2011–2017 drought,

California’s agricultural industry suffered at least $5 billion in losses. Because California feeds

not only its own residents, but the entire U.S. and other countries as well, production declines

could lead to food shortages and higher prices.

7. Sea Level Rise, Coastal Flooding and Coastal Erosion

221. Climate change causes sea level rise in two primary ways: (1) by causing the melting

of ice sheets and glaciers, and (2) by warming seawater, which consequently expands. Sea level

rise is already accelerating along the California coast and will continue to rise substantially over

the twenty-first century, threatening coastal communities, natural resources, cultural sites, and

infrastructure.

222. California has approximately 1,100 miles of coastline. California’s 19 coastal

counties are home to 68% of its people, 80% of its wages, and 80% of its GDP.

148

The sea level

along California’s coasts has risen nearly eight inches in the past century and is projected to rise

by 3.5 feet, and as much as 6.6 feet under extreme scenarios, by the end of the century. As the

Earth gradually warms, sea level rise will continue to threaten coastal communities and

infrastructure through more frequent flooding (followed by permanent inundation of low-lying

areas), and increased erosion of cliffs, bluffs, dunes, and beaches. Across California, accelerating

sea level rise will cause an exponential increase in the frequency of coastal flooding events,

doubling with approximately every two to four inches of sea level rise. Sea level rise could put

600,000 people at risk of flooding by the year 2100, and threaten $150 billion in property and

infrastructure, including roadways, buildings, hazardous waste sites, power plants, and parks and

tourist destinations. Coastal erosion could have a significant impact on California’s ocean-

dependent economy, which is the nation’s largest, and estimated to exceed $45 billion per year.

148

California’s gross domestic product, or GDP, is the value of all goods and services

produced in California.

114

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

Critical infrastructure located on the shore, such as wastewater treatment plants, power stations,

and transportation corridors, will also be affected. Sea level rise also pushes shallow groundwater

closer to the surface, a process that may release contaminants buried in the soil.

223. Sea levels along the California coast have generally risen over the past century,

except along the far north coast where uplift of the land surface has occurred due to the

movement of the Earth’s plates, as illustrated in the following chart.

Figure 16: Annual Mean Sea Level Trends

224. Coastal wave events and high tides, in combination with current and rising sea levels,

will increase flood impacts on land, which will exacerbate the impact on coastal assets. Rising sea

levels may also contaminate coastal groundwater aquifers and raise groundwater tables, causing

increased flooding leading to impacts that will, among other things, further damage buried and

low-lying infrastructure.

225. Coastal recreation and tourism are vulnerable to repeated and increasing disruptions

from sea level rise, flooding, and erosion. Accelerated erosion and flooding diminish the number

and quality of beaches. Beach closures have already occurred in California because of erosion and

high storm surges, and such closures impact tourism and result in natural resource damage. Areas

including some state parks and beaches will suffer further erosion due to sea level rise.

115

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

226. Rising water levels and increased storm activity will increase coastal erosion,

impacting beaches and cliffs throughout the state. For example, a projected 31–67% of Southern

California beaches are projected to completely erode by the end of the century if adaptation

actions are not implemented.

227. Billions of dollars’ worth of real estate development, primarily residential properties,

line the California seashore. All of California’s low-lying communities, as well as developments

on cliffs, bluffs, dunes, or the beach itself, and their associated infrastructure, are vulnerable to

the impacts of a rising sea. King tides, and/or storm events—often accompanied by the

simultaneous arrival of large waves—have already impacted many of these areas repeatedly.

228. Saltwater intrusion from sea level rise is also expected to impair water quality in

coastal groundwater aquifers, as well as surface water supplies, as the salt front moves upstream.

Water quality will also be degraded as rising sea levels submerge sewer discharge points,

allowing contaminants to move into waterways and the surrounding environment. Industrial sites

located in coastal areas will be at a greater risk of pollutant discharge into the State’s waters.

229. Rising seas will inundate coastal infrastructure, including wastewater treatment plants

and toxic cleanup sites where contaminants may be mobilized and risk spreading contamination

to nearby vulnerable communities. Hundreds of such sites in the state are potentially vulnerable to

impacts from sea level rise.

230. Sea level rise in California not only threatens coastal communities, but also threatens

the health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the heart of the California water supply system,

the source of water for 25 million Californians and millions of acres of prime farmland, and

essential habitat for imperiled native wildlife. Sea level rise in California could lead to flooding of

low-lying areas, loss of coastal wetlands, saltwater contamination of drinking water, impacts on

roads and bridges, and increased stress on levees. It may also require increased flows to prevent

saltwater intrusion into the Bay-Delta system.

8. Ecosystem, Habitat, and Biodiversity Disruption

231. California is one of the most biologically diverse regions of the world, with the

highest number of unique plant and animal species of all 50 states, and the greatest number of

116

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

endangered species. Moreover, due to its diverse topographic, geologic, and climate conditions,

California is one of 25 global biodiversity hotspots, where exceptional concentrations of endemic

species are experiencing significant habitat loss. California’s diverse climates are closely linked

to the State’s biodiversity; climate change is therefore expected to directly and indirectly impact

California’s terrestrial and marine habitats and species—and indeed already is impacting them.

232. Healthy ecosystems and biodiversity provide a plethora of direct and indirect benefits

to Californians and the State’s economy, such as clean air, clean water, crop pollination, and

recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing. These “ecosystem

services” are tied to biodiversity and will therefore be negatively impacted by climate change.

233. Climate change can affect biodiversity in many ways. For example, species can be

directly impacted, like salmon being exposed to warming stream temperatures that threaten their

survival. Species can also be affected indirectly, through climate-induced changes in food, water,

and habitat availability. Since ecosystems are highly interconnected, impacts to individual species

often have consequences for other species within the system.

234. As a result of climate change, California has seen, and will continue to see, the

following impacts on its ecosystems: shifts in species abundance and distributions; shifts in the

timing of important life-cycle events such as pollination, flowering, breeding, and migration; the

spread of invasive species and pests, which pose a threat to the survival of native species and

usually disrupt ecosystem processes; and habitat loss and species extinctions. Throughout

California, these types of changes have been observed across terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine, and

marine ecosystems.

235. More specifically, some of the effects of climate change on habitat and biodiversity in

California will include the following:

a. Physiological stress on species due to changes in temperature and

precipitation. Warming temperatures, declining snowpack, and earlier spring snowmelt runoff

create stresses on vegetation. This stress will cause shifts in geographic ranges, and will facilitate

the spread of invasive species, pests (such as the bark beetle), pathogens, and diseases that affect

ecosystems and species, and generally cause population declines. For example, tree deaths have

117

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

increased dramatically in California since the 2012-2016 drought; approximately 129 million

trees died in California between 2012 and 2017. Higher temperatures and decreased water

availability made the trees more vulnerable to insects and pathogen attacks. Some of the most

heavily impacted vegetation regions are predicted to be the Sierra Nevada foothills; the south

coast, including Los Angeles and San Diego; the deserts; and potentially the coast ranges north of

the San Francisco Bay Area. Similarly, in three study regions of the Sierra Nevada, the habitat

ranges of almost 75% of the small mammalian species and over 80% of the bird species surveyed

were observed to have shifted compared to a century ago.

b. Impacts to timing of species’ lifecycle phases due to shifting timing of climatic

events. Changes in temperature, precipitation, food sources, competition for prey, and other

physical or biological elements may cause detrimental alterations in the timing of key life cycle

events for plants and animals, harming population health and further shifting the ranges where

these plants and animals can survive. For example, some butterfly species emerge at the same

time that their host plants flower. Warming temperatures are linked with earlier flowering times,

and if butterflies and host plants are not able to adapt to a shifting climate at the same rate,

butterflies may have insufficient food, and the host plants may lack pollinators. As another

example, shifts in suitable climatic conditions for seedling establishment for two common

California oak species have caused significant decreases in seedling “establishment windows,”

which is likely to bring about future population declines.

c. Aquatic ecosystem and marine habitat impacts. Shifts anticipated and already

observed in precipitation and water flow patterns have negatively impacted water quality (e.g.,

due to sedimentation or algal blooms) and habitat suitability. As one example, harmful algal

blooms are becoming more frequent and more intense across California as waters warm. These

blooms, which result from the overgrowth of algae, caused 18 human illnesses and 444 animal

illnesses in California in 2021 alone. Further, shifts in quantities of sediment in waterways have

significant consequences, including declining water quality due to increases in contaminants such

as pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, and mercury. Under current GHG emissions trajectories, 82%

of native California freshwater fishes have an increased probability of becoming extinct by 2100;

118

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

these include many species that are already at risk and listed as species of special concern or

species that are endangered, including salmon and steelhead trout. In contrast, non-native species

are thriving in the increasingly warm waters of California’s rivers and reservoirs, taking the place

of many native fishes. Further, ocean acidification and warming have a broad variety of effects,

negatively impacting everything from copepods at the base of the food chain to Chinook salmon

and sea lion pup births.

236. The State has incurred damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’

conduct. The State has planned and is planning, at significant expense, adaptation and mitigation

strategies to address climate change-related impacts in order to preemptively mitigate and/or

prevent injuries to itself and its residents.

237. The scale of transformation needed over this decade to avoid the worst impacts of

climate change is extraordinary. The State has made investments of a historic scale to advance the

all-of-government approaches necessary to avert the worst impacts of climate change. For

example, California’s $52.2 billion Climate Change Commitment for 2021 through 2027 includes

$10 billion for zero-emission vehicles, $2.1 billion for clean energy investments, $13.8 billion for

programs that reduce emissions from the transportation sector, such as improving public

transportation while also funding walking, biking, and adaptation projects, and $13.2 billion for

wildfire risk reduction, drought mitigation, extreme heat resilience, and nature-based solutions.

238. The State has spent tens of billions of dollars to adapt to climate change and address

the damages climate change has caused so far, and the State will need to spend multiples of that

figure in the years to come.

239. Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about

these and other climate-related injuries suffered by the State, including harms to its infrastructure,

environment, socioeconomic condition, and public health, that it has endured, and foreseeably

will endure, due to the climate crisis. Moreover, the brunt of these injuries and harms will fall on

frontline communities, as climate change exacerbates existing public health and environmental

disparities.

119

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

240. Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct as described herein is therefore an actual,

direct, and proximate substantial-factor cause of the State’s climate crisis-related injuries and

brought about or helped to bring about those injuries. Such injuries include, but are not limited to,

harms due to delayed responses to climate change caused by Defendants’ behavior.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

PUBLIC NUISANCE

(Civil Code Sections 3479, 3480, and 3494)

(Against All Defendants)

241. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

242. Under Civil Code section 3479, a “nuisance” is “anything which is injurious to

health,” including, but not limited to, “an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere

with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property,” or anything which “unlawfully obstructs the

free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal,

or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway.”

243. Under Civil Code section 3480, a “public nuisance” is “one which affects at the same

time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the

extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.”

244. Pursuant to Civil Code section 3494, a “public nuisance may be abated by any public

body or officer authorized thereto by law.” As courts have recognized, the Attorney General is

such a public officer authorized to bring an action in the name of the People of the State of

California to abate a public nuisance.

245. Defendants, individually and in concert with each other, by their affirmative acts and

omissions, have created, contributed to, and assisted in creating harmful climate-related

conditions throughout California, including extreme heat, drought, increased wildfire risk, air

pollution, flooding, damage to agriculture, sea level rise, coastal erosion, habitat destruction, and

loss of ecosystems, with compounding effects in frontline communities. These climate-related

120

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

harms are injurious to health, indecent and offensive to the senses, and obstruct the free use of

property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property, and therefore

constitute a nuisance.

246. Defendants, and each of them, created, caused, contributed to, and assisted in the

creation of these and other climate-related harms in California by, among other things,

affirmatively promoting the sale and use of fossil fuel products in California which Defendants

knew would cause or exacerbate climate change and its impacts, including without limitation

extreme heat, drought, increased wildfire risk, public heath injuries, extreme weather, and sea

level rise.

247. The climate-related harms that Defendants created, caused, contributed to, and

assisted in the creation of, have substantially and unreasonably interfered with the exercise of

rights common to the public, including the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the

public comfort, and the public convenience. These interferences with public rights include,

among other things, affirmatively promoting the sale and use of fossil fuel products in California,

which Defendants knew would cause or exacerbate climate change and its impacts, including

without limitation extreme heat, drought, increased wildfire risk, public health injuries, extreme

weather, and sea level rise.

248. The climate-related harms that Defendants created, caused, contributed to, and

assisted in the creation of, have substantially and unreasonably interfered with the exercise of

rights common to the public, including the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the

public comfort, and the public convenience. These interferences with public rights include,

among other things:

a. Extreme heat events, which increase the risk of injury or death from

dehydration, heat stroke, heart attack, and respiratory problems;

b. Frequent and severe droughts, which can result in drinking water shortages and

land subsidence due to groundwater depletion;

121

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

c. Catastrophic wildfires, which destroy California’s natural resources and

residents’ homes, while also emitting dangerous pollutants into the air and severely

compromising air quality;

d. Increased smog from hotter temperatures, which damages lungs and increases

rates of childhood asthma, respiratory and heart disease, and death, and which reduces visibility

and obstructs scenic views;

e. Extreme winter storms, which cause flooding that can damage public

infrastructure, obstructing the free passage and use of property;

f. Damage to agriculture, including reduced crop yields that could lead to food

shortages;

g. Sea level rise, coastal inundation, and groundwater changes, which obstruct the

free passage and use of roads and property, impair water quality in groundwater aquifers, damage

critical public infrastructure such as power plants and airports, and lead to unprecedented and

dangerous storm surges that can cause injury or even deaths; and

h. Significant disruptions to California’s ecosystems and biodiversity, including

the spread of invasive species and pests and the risk of extinction for California’s native species.

249. The harms caused by Defendants’ nuisance-creating conduct are extremely grave, and

far outweigh the social utility of that conduct.

250. The climate-related harms that Defendants created, caused, contributed to, and

assisted in the creation of are present throughout California, and therefore affect a considerable

number of persons in California.

251. The climate-related harms that Defendants created, caused, contributed to, and

assisted in the creation of continue to harm to the State and its people into the present day, and

will continue to harm the State and its people many years into the future.

252. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, the State will be

required to expend significant public resources to mitigate the impacts of climate-related harms

throughout California.

122

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

253. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Californians have

sustained and will sustain injuries to public health, safety, and welfare; the loss of use and

enjoyment of natural resources; and obstruction to the free use of property, harms for which

Defendants are jointly and severally liable.

254. Defendants’ acts and omissions have caused or threaten to cause injuries to people,

properties, and natural resources in California that are indivisible.

255. The State seeks abatement of the public nuisance caused by Defendants.

256. The State requests that this Court order Defendants, and each of them jointly and

severally, to abate the nuisance, including by making payments into an abatement fund to address

the public nuisance.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

ACTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR POLLUTION, IMPAIRMENT, AND

DESTRUCTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES

(Government Code Section 12607)

(Against All Defendants)

257. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

258. Government Code section 12607 authorizes the Attorney General to “maintain an

action for equitable relief in the name of the People of the State of California against any person

for the protection of the natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment, or destruction.”

259. “Natural resource” is defined to include “land, water, air, minerals, vegetation,

wildlife, silence, historic or aesthetic sites, or any other natural resource which, irrespective of

ownership contributes, or in the future may contribute, to the health, safety, welfare, or enjoyment

of a substantial number of persons, or to the substantial balance of an ecological community.”

(Gov. Code, § 12605.)

260. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, climate-related conditions are polluting,

impairing, and destroying the State’s natural resources.

123

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

261. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, climate-related conditions are polluting,

impairing, and destroying “other natural resources” as described in the statute which,

“irrespective of ownership contribute, or in the future may contribute, to the health, safety,

welfare, or enjoyment of a substantial number of persons, or to the substantial balance of an

ecological community.” (Gov. Code, § 12605.)

262. This pollution, impairment, and destruction of natural resources, including water,

wildlife, and other natural resources, is continuing in nature.

263. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in and continue to engage in, conduct

that caused or contributed to the pollution, impairment, and destruction of natural resources,

including water resources, wildlife, and other natural resources. The acts and practices engaged in

by Defendants that polluted, impaired, and destroyed natural resources include the following:

a. affirmatively and knowingly promoting the sale and use of fossil fuel products

in California which Defendants knew would cause or exacerbate climate change and its impacts,

including extreme heat, drought, extreme weather, and sea level rise;

b. affirmatively and knowingly concealing the hazards that Defendants knew

would result from the use of their fossil fuel products by misrepresenting and casting doubt on the

integrity of scientific information related to climate change;

c. affirmatively promoting fossil fuel products for uses that Defendants knew

would be dangerous and cause harm to consumers, the public, and the State;

d. disseminating and funding the dissemination of information intending to

mislead customers, consumers, lawmakers, and the public regarding the known and foreseeable

risks of climate change and its consequences that follow from the normal, intended use of fossil

fuel products;

e. delaying the development of viable clean energy alternatives by preventing

customers, the media, policymakers, and the public from having access to full and accurate

information material to their energy purchasing decisions, thereby causing the emission of vast

quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere;

124

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

f. failing to warn the public about the hazards associated with the use of fossil

fuel products; and

g. deceptively marketing their products as environmentally beneficial or benign

when in reality those products contribute to climate change and are harmful to the health of the

planet and its people.

264. Defendants’ acts and omissions have caused pollution, impairment, and destruction of

California’s natural resources, including water, wildlife, and other natural resources that are

indivisible.

265. Pursuant to Government Code section 12607, the State requests that this Court grant

temporary and permanent equitable relief and impose such conditions upon Defendants as are

required to protect the natural resources of California from pollution, impairment, or destruction.

266. Pursuant to Government Code section 12610, the State requests that this Court grant

any and all temporary and permanent equitable relief needed to prevent further pollution,

impairment and destruction of the natural resources of California, including the imposition of

such conditions upon the Defendants as are required to protect the natural resources of California

from pollution, impairment, or destruction.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

UNTRUE OR MISLEADING ADVERTISING

(Business and Professions Code Section 17500)

(Against All Defendants)

267. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

268. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in and continue to engage in acts or

practices that constitute violations of the False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code

section 17500 et seq.

269. Defendants, with the intent to induce members of the public to purchase and utilize

fossil fuel products, made or caused to be made and/or disseminated misleading statements

concerning the fossil fuels, which Defendants knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should

125

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

have known, were untrue or misleading at the time they were made. Such misrepresentations

include, but are not limited to:

a. Deceptively marketing fossil fuel products claimed to be “low carbon,”

“emissions-reducing,” “clean” and/or “green,” or otherwise environmentally beneficial or benign,

when in reality those products contribute to climate change and are harmful to the health of the

planet and its people;

b. Deceptively promoting natural gas as a climate-friendly or environmentally

friendly fuel, and/or as “clean” or “cleaner” than other fossil fuels, when in reality natural gas

contributes to climate change and is harmful to the health of the planet and its people;

c. Deceptively marketing their companies and their products as contributing to

solutions to climate change when in reality their investments in clean energy and alternative fuels

pale in comparison to their investments in expanding fossil fuel production, and those alternative

fuels, such as natural gas, contribute to climate change; and

d. Misleadingly promoting their companies as being in alignment with

international goals to reduce carbon emissions and reach net-zero emissions, when in reality they

are investing in maintaining and/or expanding their fossil fuel businesses.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

MISLEADING ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING

(Business and Professions Code Section 17580.5)

(Against All Defendants)

270. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

271. Defendants, and each of them, have made environmental marketing claims that are

untruthful, deceptive, and/or misleading, whether explicitly or implicitly, in violation of Business

and Professions Code section 17580.5.

272. Such misleading environmental marketing claims include, but are not limited to, such

deceptive representations as:

126

Complaint for Abatement, Equitable Relief, Penalties, and Damages

a. Deceptively marketing fossil fuel products claimed to be “low carbon,”

“emissions-reducing,” “clean” and/or “green,” or otherwise environmentally beneficial or benign,

when in reality those products contribute to climate change and are harmful to the health of the

plant and its people;